On 2012-06-02 21:56 +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 09:33:19PM +0200, Thibaut Girka wrote:
>> On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 09:02:54PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
>> > Your patch actually also makes libc0.1-dev, libc0.3-dev and libc6.1-dev
>> > m-a: same. You should also check for files in these packages.
>>
>> Oh, I didn't know about that.
>>
>> libc0.1-dev is ok.
>> libc0.3-dev is ok since it's only available for one architecture.
>> libc6.1-dev is ok too.
>>
>
> Either we have to make them conflict one with another (that is
> libc0.1-dev and libc6-dev, libc0.3-dev with libc6-dev, etc.),
Note that this holds whether or not these packages are "M-A: same".
> or we have to check for these packages as if they were a single one.
This means they would need to have the same name (probably libc-dev) on
all architectures.
Cheers,
Sven
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/871ulw95oe....@turtle.gmx.de
