James Troup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Filippo Giunchedi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> Sorry but I can't really understand, writing a debian/shlibs.local file >> overriding libc6 version is possible and supposed to work. Is it wrong or bad >> pratice? I know it isn't the Right Way, I'm only trying to understand what >> I'm >> probably missing. > > Sorry but it's stupid. If you don't do it for every architecture, it > doesn't get you anywhere. If you're going to do it for every > architecture, you have to have tested it. Can/would you really check > it on all 11 architectures?
How is this different from all the other dependencies in Debian? A package can stop working when some package it depends on changes. If this happens without the maintainer noticing, a bug gets filed and the problem gets fixed. We don't insist that every Depends: foo be Depends: foo (>= 1.2.3) where 1.2.3 is the current unstable version. (Do we even insist on this for other libraries?) I realize the libc6 plays a more central role than many other packages, but still, I don't see the difference in principle. The developer can read the Changelog for libc6 and see if anything their package uses has changed. It's really quite a pain to have these versioned dependencies, so that's why I'm asking for a more complete justification. Thanks, Dan
