I think an essential base package would make sense. If it's a shared library, it will be required by too many package to make it build-essential. The -dev package would be build-essential.
On Sat, Feb 02, 2002 at 11:31:42PM +0100, Jeroen Dekkers wrote: > On Sat, Feb 02, 2002 at 10:09:33PM +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > > Uhm, yes. Definitely should be packaged. That way we at least have a way > > > to allow folks to declare (build|)dependancies on "GNU libc or libiberty". > > Packages never depend on libc, becuase it's a (build-)essential package. > > > Would it make more sense to include it in the libc package? That way we > > end up with a single package that approximates the functionality of glibc, > > rather than requiring several of them. > > I think libibery should be (build-)essential. Putting libc and > libiberty in one package is wrong because they have a different > upstream. I think the right way is having a libc package which depends > on the libiberty package. > > Jeroen Dekkers > -- > Jabber supporter - http://www.jabber.org Jabber ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Debian GNU supporter - http://www.debian.org http://www.gnu.org > IRC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
