On Fri, Aug 09, 2002 at 10:34:13AM -0400, Ben Collins wrote: > On Fri, Aug 09, 2002 at 03:14:32PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 09, 2002 at 09:56:30AM -0400, Ben Collins wrote: > > > Sounds like a good idea. Someone has already offered to do exactly this > > > (and please don't use the "g" extension, it dates back to hamm, and > > > serves no good purpose nowadays). > > > > There is one problem there in that there's already a libdb1 package > > providing libdb.so.1.85.4, and although the differences are small I > > think they're enough for it to be incompatible. The compatibility > > package would have to be called something else. > > libdb1-glibc-compat?
The libdb1 package currently in unstable is for libc5 (didn't spot that at first for some reason ...), so I thought this was exactly what the 'g' suffix was for? I've no particular religious convictions either way though. I have something that looks pretty close to a working package in my home directory now. objdump output for its libdb.so.2 and the one from glibc is almost identical, with the exception of a couple of missing sections which I'm trying to figure out. I'll put it somewhere public for testing when I've cleaned it up a bit more. Is it going to be necessary to apply upgrade hacks to libdb.so.2 in libc6's postinst, similar to those currently there for libdb.so.3? -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]