Re: soversion for shared libraries?

ers, because it's not uncommon to want to install something compiled against, say, Red Hat's glibc and libstdc++. It's certainly not that important for packages which aren't spectacularly heavily used. -- Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Bush admitted to violating FISA and said he was proud of it. So why isn't he in prison yet?... -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Policy should require _pic libraries for static-only libraries

Gerrit Pape wrote: > Nothing forces a maintainer to provide a _pic.a library, original > upstream says that this is not what the library is intended for. Checked djb's website; he says absolutely nothing about _pic.a libraries. There is no claim there that "that is not what the library is intended

Add Debian revision number standards to policy?

olicy should follow practice; it would be supremely annoying and worthy of a serious bug if these revisioning rules are not followed. It's already checked in NM! Should a policy patch be created? -- Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> This space intentionally left blank. -- To UNSUB

Re: Dropping/splitting (proper) i386 support

Dale Martin said: >don't support. We have to think about: >- All of the x86 compatible Intel processors All except the actual i386 (all suffixes) support the 486 instruction set. >- All of the x86 compatible AMD processors All except the 386* chips support the 486 instruction set. >- All of the