Hi,
On Wed, 23 Feb 2011, Steve Langasek wrote:
A virtual package is a good idea, though - in fact, it's such a good idea
that I remember now we discussed this back at DebConf and I'd subsequently
forgotten about it. Thanks for jogging my memory! :) Yes, whether or not
we add support in a
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 01:55:57PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Wed, 23 Feb 2011, Steve Langasek wrote:
A virtual package is a good idea, though - in fact, it's such a good idea
that I remember now we discussed this back at DebConf and I'd subsequently
forgotten about it. Thanks for
Dear release team,
Although the paths in which libraries will ultimately be installed for
multiarch is not yet entirely settled, one thing that is clear is that on
i386, we almost certainly will not be using the path which has been enabled
in glibc up to now, namely /lib/i486-linux-gnu.[1] We
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 01:52:35PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
[1] i486 is an arbitrary name that happens to correspond to the base
instruction set that was in use on Debian at the time multiarch was first
formulated, but it doesn't match the current base instruction set on Debian
(i586) or
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 11:15:02PM +0100, Philipp Kern wrote:
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 01:52:35PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
[1] i486 is an arbitrary name that happens to correspond to the base
instruction set that was in use on Debian at the time multiarch was first
formulated, but it
* Steve Langasek (vor...@debian.org) [110223 22:53]:
We can handle this one of two ways. We can either bump the minimal
dependency of *all* packages against libc, by adjusting shlibs/symbols in
the eglibc package; or we can make adding the dependency a part of the
standard library
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 02:29:26PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
[1] As you said pre-depends are messy but the safe bet. It would be best if
we could somehow ensure that libc6 is upgraded first and that everything
needed for the unpack is still there at that point (i.e. some liberal
* Steve Langasek (vor...@debian.org) [110223 23:29]:
Ah, I don't know the details; I take this as gospel from the GCC maintainers
that There Are Differences. Perhaps the differences are only optimization
rather than compatibility; but regardless, given that most distros use
i586-linux-gnu or
On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 at 13:52:35 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
we almost certainly will not be using the path which has been enabled
in glibc up to now, namely /lib/i486-linux-gnu.
I'd heard that, and was somewhat concerned about whether that'd block
multiarch for yet another release cycle; I'm
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 10:55:51PM +, Simon McVittie wrote:
On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 at 13:52:35 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
we almost certainly will not be using the path which has been enabled
in glibc up to now, namely /lib/i486-linux-gnu.
I'd heard that, and was somewhat concerned about
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 12:03:18AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
* Steve Langasek (vor...@debian.org) [110223 22:53]:
We can handle this one of two ways. We can either bump the minimal
dependency of *all* packages against libc, by adjusting shlibs/symbols in
the eglibc package; or we can
11 matches
Mail list logo
