On Thu, Jan 24, 2002 at 06:24:04PM +0100, Jeroen Dekkers wrote: > 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? > > I don't know about what dependencies you're talking about. If you're > talking about "Build-Depends: libc6 (>= x.x.x)" renaming doesn't help > anything. It should be > "Build-Depends: libc6 (>= x.x.x) | netbsd-libc (>= x.x.x)".
I suggest creating a virtual package called "libc" or something similar. Set libc6 to provide it. Then, my freebsd-libc4 package, and the netbsd-libc package can provide it also, and source dependacies are fine. Or what you suggest can be done also, for packages that need specific versions. I think having the virtual package could be convenient for other reasons. > I'm also thinking about porting glibc to *BSD. I think that would > solve very much problems, as a lot of programs just expect to have > glibc installed. A lot of kernel-specific things are already fixed > because we want them to compile on Debian GNU/Hurd. But the Hurd also > uses glibc, I expect really much trouble with that. Most people just > don't know how to write portable or don't care about it. I don't know > if I'm the only one thinking about porting glibc. Feel free. I looked at it, and I think I'd rather spend my time elsewhere. It would be a huge help, though. Even if you're successful, I think we'll need to have the BSD libc available for the kernel specific utilities. As for portable code, I think that's something that needs to change. Portable code tends to be better code. I'd rather see some of the Debian tools like apt become more portable than have a glibc port, because I think making those programs more portable will most likely improve them.
