Richard Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Because of that, I was thinking that perhaps it might be best to > just increment the soname to libc.so.6.2. > [...] > > Cc'ed to debian-glibc, since they're the only currently viable alpha > distribution that I'm aware of. I see yall are still using glibc > 2.3.2. What are debian's plans here wrt the next release (if there's > ever to be one)?
The last time we changed the libc soname was extremely painful, because all libraries need recompiling, and we had to mangle the package name to have dpkg handle this. I'm not convinced 128 bit long doubles for one architecture are worth this trouble. However, we plan to eventually improve dpkg to handle situations like this since it's needed anyway e. g. for parallel installation of x86-64 and i386 packages. Hopefully that would make this change feasible. However that is very unlikely to happen for the next release. -- Falk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]