On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 03:57:07PM -0600, Drew Scott Daniels wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
>
> Section 2.3.1 says:
> "Package names must consist of lower case letters (a-z), digits (0-9),
> plus (+) and minus (-) signs, and periods (.)."
>
> It should say something like:
> "Package names must n
On Wed, 12 Mar 2003, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> That is caused by dlopen used by PAM, which I assume is caused by
Or dlopen used by glibc (nss modules), or dlopen used by anything else.
Apache modules can kill apache that way too, for example (afaik anyway).
> dlopening with RTDL_GLOBAL, where there
CVSROOT:/cvs/debian-policy
Module name:debian-policy
Changes by: joy Tue Mar 11 16:57:43 MST 2003
Modified files:
. : virtual-package-names-list.txt
Log message:
fixed typos noticed by Osamu Aoki, indented by a space, various formatting
fixes to elimin
CVSROOT:/cvs/debian-policy
Module name:debian-policy
Changes by: joy Tue Mar 11 16:59:03 MST 2003
Modified files:
debian : changelog
Log message:
sync
CVSROOT:/cvs/debian-policy
Module name:debian-policy
Changes by: joy Tue Mar 11 16:32:56 MST 2003
Modified files:
. : virtual-package-names-list.txt
Log message:
fixed the date at the top; updated the location
Package: debian-policy
Section 2.3.1 says:
"Package names must consist of lower case letters (a-z), digits (0-9),
plus (+) and minus (-) signs, and periods (.)."
It should say something like:
"Package names must not consist of anything other than lower case letters
(a-z), digits (0-9), plus (+) a
> Sorry, I did not follow the discussion closely, so I may
> understand this wrong. But how does your proposal solve the
> following situation?
>
> libfoo1 Build-Depends on libssl0.9.6-dev
> libfoo2 Build-Depends on libssl0.9.7-dev
> libbreakseverything Build-Depends on libfoo1-dev an
> At time X libssl0.9.6-dev is in Debian.
> At time X ssh is built against libssl0.9.6-dev.
> At time Y libssl0.9.7-dev is uploaded to Debian.
> At time Y libldap2 is built against libssl0.9.7-dev.
> At time Z a user installs libssl0.9.6, libssl0.9.7, ssh, libldap2
> and libpam-ldap, all of which
* Junichi Uekawa ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > What about it would avoid libssl0.9.6 problems? Nothing I saw would
> > solve the problems of multiple versions of a library ending up linked
> > into the same process except the symbol versioning portion, which is
> > what I'm advocating here but yo
* Richard Braakman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I think it would avoid the problem, but it would be a major headache
> to deal with in practice. It would be as bad as tcl4.* used to be,
> and I'm glad we left THAT behind.
It won't solve the problem, please read my reply to him for a better
unders
On Wed, 12 Mar 2003, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 10:47:34AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > It doesn't need to, either. Whatever isn't in the LSB doesn't matter as far
> > as interoperatibility is concerned [if the LSB is done right].
>
> Uh, libqt isn't standard
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 10:47:34AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> It doesn't need to, either. Whatever isn't in the LSB doesn't matter as far
> as interoperatibility is concerned [if the LSB is done right].
Uh, libqt isn't standardised by the LSB, and probably won't be.
Cheers,
aj
On Tue, 11 Mar 2003, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 10:47:40AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > Agreed. As far as "programs build on Debian systems won't run elsewhere",
> > it is just a matter of pushing the versioning of said core libraries to the
> > LSB, which shou
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 08:14:50AM +0100, Jochen Voss wrote:
> Sorry, I did not follow the discussion closely, so I may
> understand this wrong. But how does your proposal solve the
> following situation?
>
> libfoo1 Build-Depends on libssl0.9.6-dev
> libfoo2 Build-Depends on libssl0.9.7-
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 10:47:40AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> Agreed. As far as "programs build on Debian systems won't run elsewhere",
> it is just a matter of pushing the versioning of said core libraries to the
> LSB, which shouldn't be too difficult if we do it right and send
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 09:22:53AM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> ...
>
> This doesn't solve the problem, and -Bsymbolic only solves a portion of
> the problem.
>
> ...
I have looked at -Bsymbolic, and it seems to be doing about the
same as my proposed change (see elsewhere), however the docs on
Hello,
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 02:02:30PM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> You could also take an approach of pulling out libssl-dev,
> and making packages to Build-Depend on libssl0.9.7-dev libssl0.9.6-dev
> explicitly, and starting to rebuild packages against them.
>
> That way, within Debian, it
17 matches
Mail list logo
