Please CC me on all replies, even though I am (finally) subscribed. It works better with my mail sorting setup.
On Wed, Jan 23, 2002 at 09:00:14PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote: > Having run into a few packages, now, which have dependancies on specific > GNU libc versions (or rather, libc versions, when all that the packaging > system understands is libc == GNU libc), which compiled just fine under > the NetBSD libc, I come to the following conclusion: > > We should request that a provision be made for desginating which libc is > required, from the developer/policy community. This is not true; GNU libc is called libc6 rather than libc. So there is no conflict. Also, the source packages don't generally have dependencies on libc6, only the compiled binary ones (as makes sense for dynamically linked Linux executables). By the way, in response to your question, I at least am an official Debian developer; are there any others on this project? (This is mainly a question out of curiosity rather than anything else.) To all of you out there: By the way, I will be at the LinuxWorld Expo in New York City from Jan 30 through Feb 1, in the Debian booth. Come by and maybe we can talk about Debian GNU/NetBSD as well as Debian GNU/Linux! Also, I have made some progress regarding packaging useful programs such as sudo (and getting it to work, of course), gettext, sharutils (with nls disabled only), and libtool. I have been having problems getting fakeroot working, but I will post about those separately. Most of the problems I have been able to overcome, but I need a bit of advice on one of them. Consider this my "hi, count me in!" post. - Jimmy Kaplowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
