On Wed, Jan 23, 2002 at 11:23:57PM -0500, Jimmy Kaplowitz wrote: > 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).
Quite a few of them have build dependacies on libc6-dev. That will need to be changed. I suggest that we propose virtual packages. Actually, I'm thinking both libc and kernel should be handled that way. > 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.) I also am a Debian developer. I believe there were a couple others lurking here, and I have also seen posts by comitters for both NetBSD and FreeBSD.
