At 5 Mar 2003 11:13:25 +0100, Sebastian Ley wrote: > > * GOTO Masanori wrote: > > > libc6 is for arm, hppa, i386, m68k, mips, mipsel, powerpc, s390, and sparc. > > libc6.1 is for alpha and ia64. > > libc0.3 is for hurd-i386. > > libc1 is for freebsd-i386. > > > > So, is libc6-udeb appropriate for all archs? Or should we use > > libc6.1-udeb for ia64 and alpha? I don't know about udeb, should we > > change your wishlist just now? > > Oh, I didn't know this... > > The practice should be to just add the "-udeb" string to the > corresponding deb package name. So it should be named libc6.1-udeb for > alpha and ia64. > > Same holds for #183143: libc6-udeb should Provide: libc6 and for alpha > it should be Provides: libc6.1 > > Th reason, why the soname number must be included in the udeb name is > the same why we include it in regular packages. When doing a > netinstall, udebs can be loaded from the archive at install time. When > there is no way to distingiush a libc, that is binary incompatible to > the programs on the install disk, we will have a problem.
Hmm, I don't know the detail of udeb framework - well, it seems we have to change -udeb package name for each archs. But... I don't still know that this udeb naming framework is really well-thought-out things? Are there any standard rule of udeb package naming scheme? I would like to know it before changing package name. It might be rapid to send a patch for glibc udeb if you already have. Regards, -- gotom -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
