Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, Apr 11, 2006 at 11:51:26AM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote: >> Le Mar 11 Avril 2006 11:05, Goswin von Brederlow a écrit : > >> > I'm assuming libc6 depends on libc-bin and libc-bin depends on libc6 >> > here. The former is needed to always pull in libc-bin on upgrades and >> > the later is needed to ensure the minimum version requirements as >> > sepcified in libc6.shlibs. We don't want a new libc-bin with a too >> > old libc6. > >> riiiiight, but that makes a nasty circular dependency I thought we >> should avoid at any rate ? Shouldn't libc-bin rather conflicts with bad >> version of the libc ? > > No. Having libc-bin conflict with libc doesn't help you make sure libc-bin > is pulled into the system, which is what you need. (There are no "bad > versions" of libc here; there are versions that need libc-bin, and there are > versions that don't, and you need some way to pull libc-bin in for those > versions that do need it.)
He ment: Package: libc6 Depends: libc-bin [pull in libc-bin] Package: libc-bin Conflicts: libc6 (<< version from shlibs) Replaces: libc6 (<< first split version) This would make sure a matching libc6 and libc-bin package gets installed as pair. But due to dpkgs long standing conflicts handling bug this does not prevent a downgrade of libc6 to a version unsuitable for libc-bin. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]