Scripsit Stephen Frost
* Henning Makholm ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
In summary: Yes, one could probably work around the lack of versions
in the -dev packages name, but the result would be (in my view)
significantly less elegant than having it there.
Trying to support unsupported versions
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Is anybody advocating that we should try to support unsupported
versions of libraries? I'm certainly not.
Sure! That's what libc5 is.
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
Scripsit Thomas Bushnell BSG
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Is anybody advocating that we should try to support unsupported
versions of libraries? I'm certainly not.
Sure! That's what libc5 is.
I'm not aware of even having mentioned libc5 in this thread (and I
don't remember
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Scripsit Thomas Bushnell BSG
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Is anybody advocating that we should try to support unsupported
versions of libraries? I'm certainly not.
Sure! That's what libc5 is.
I'm not aware of even having
Scripsit Thomas Bushnell BSG
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Scripsit Thomas Bushnell BSG
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Is anybody advocating that we should try to support unsupported
versions of libraries? I'm certainly not.
Sure! That's what libc5 is.
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
Frank Küster wrote:
Do I understand right that you recommend not to use libfoo1-dev,
libfoo2-dev generally, but that the most recent version should be just
libfoo-dev? The Debian library packaging guide gives the opposite
advice, to use
6 matches
Mail list logo
