On Mon, Feb 21, 2005 at 03:28:10AM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Bill Allombert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Actually, there might be no need for virtual packages, since the tool
will be run at compile time and can look up which libc is in use.
Libc would not be the only thing decided.
Scripsit Bill Allombert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, Feb 19, 2005 at 12:58:15AM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
I don't think there can be much argument that anything that Provides
c-compiler also has to make sure that standard header files like
stdio.h or unistd.h are present on the system.
On Thu, Feb 17, 2005 at 02:05:56PM -0700, Joel Aelwyn wrote:
So, while discussing a bug in a -dev with the maintainer, recently, it
reminded me to review an old thread from d-devel regarding the weird
situation with libc-dev as a pure virtual package.
The summary is this:
*) The
On Sat, Feb 19, 2005 at 12:58:15AM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Joel Aelwyn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Feb 18, 2005 at 09:17:55PM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
But can one get a C compiler at all (at least a Debian-supplied one)
without also pulling in an appropriate libc-dev? I
On Thu, Feb 17, 2005 at 02:05:56PM -0700, Joel Aelwyn wrote:
So, while discussing a bug in a -dev with the maintainer, recently, it
reminded me to review an old thread from d-devel regarding the weird
situation with libc-dev as a pure virtual package.
The summary is this:
*) The
On Thu, Feb 17, 2005 at 02:05:56PM -0700, Joel Aelwyn wrote:
*) The standard way of doing this today is to have a -dev package which
needs libc headers Depend on 'libc6-dev | libc-dev' to avoid the situation
of having only a pure-virtual package.
Why does that rule exists anyway? It's
On Fri, Feb 18, 2005 at 06:30:42PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
On Thu, Feb 17, 2005 at 02:05:56PM -0700, Joel Aelwyn wrote:
So, while discussing a bug in a -dev with the maintainer, recently, it
reminded me to review an old thread from d-devel regarding the weird
situation with libc-dev as
On Fri, Feb 18, 2005 at 06:50:50PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Thu, Feb 17, 2005 at 02:05:56PM -0700, Joel Aelwyn wrote:
*) The standard way of doing this today is to have a -dev package which
needs libc headers Depend on 'libc6-dev | libc-dev' to avoid the situation
of having only a
Scripsit Joel Aelwyn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The reason given in the origional thread was that these Depends are not
solely for building Debian packages (when Build-Essential is reasonable to
expect), but for I need to compile $userspace package, which does *not*
require B-E be installed, according
On Fri, Feb 18, 2005 at 09:17:55PM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Joel Aelwyn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The reason given in the origional thread was that these Depends are not
solely for building Debian packages (when Build-Essential is reasonable to
expect), but for I need to compile
Scripsit Joel Aelwyn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Feb 18, 2005 at 09:17:55PM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
But can one get a C compiler at all (at least a Debian-supplied one)
without also pulling in an appropriate libc-dev? I would think
that I need to compile $userspace package *did* require
So, while discussing a bug in a -dev with the maintainer, recently, it
reminded me to review an old thread from d-devel regarding the weird
situation with libc-dev as a pure virtual package.
The summary is this:
*) The 'libc-dev' package is a pure virtual package, roughly meaning
provides the
12 matches
Mail list logo
