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. As a starting point, I'll > toss out one possible resolution: > > Rename the libc-* packages to libc-gnu-* (or gnu-libc-*), and use Provides > headers to "fake" the old names, for a period of time (IE, to allow a grace > period in which packages which depend on libc can change their dependancy > listing). Other libc packages would then be libc-netbsd-* or netbsd-libc-* > in a similar fashion, allowing proper dependancy declarations for any libc > packages which might end up being part of Debian. > > Any thoughts? Comments? Spitwads? Is anyone who is actually a formal and > qualified Debian developer
Hi. > willing to take up this cross, Hehe, maybe when we're quite a bit further along. Renaming libc6 to gnu-libc6 isn't holding up debian-bsd development, so I wouldn't worry about it at this time. > or will it be left to us lowly users? :) There's no reason you can't get the ball rolling, if you like. Post to debian-devel, or if you feel ready, write up a formal policy amendment proposal and send it to the BTS against pseudo-package "debian-policy" (and probably announce it on debian-devel, too). See the archived bugreports for package "debian-policy" for examples. -- _ivan
