Hi! >>>>> Roland McGrath writes:
>> I'm now using libc0.2 as the package name, which I agree is >> correct. RM> Really? Truly? I will defer to the wisdom of those with RM> experience with debian, since I have none. But is it really the RM> case that debian has no better provision for this for dealing RM> with different versions and machine/os builds of the same RM> package? That is a serious shortcoming. Your points are well-taken. The only reason I can think of for why ABIs are not treated as virtual packages that others depend on, is that organizing the package archives would require more thought. There would have to be provisions for packages that have the same names but different sets of dependencies. The current system relies on the fact that the `architecture' field completely different than any other kind of dependency. So, we have to change the name of the package in order to get real flexibility in how dependencies are handled. This is common Debian practice... my e-mail was only intended as a guideline of how we might apply this practice to the Debian GNU/Hurd distribution. I raised this issue so that we don't find ourselves backed into a corner of the package namespace later on, when we want better integration between GNU/Linux and GNU/Hurd. Debian is also an evolving thing, and I believe that once we get far enough down this road, more people will grasp the problem and want to fix it. At that point dpkg's notion of architecture can be integrated with the dependency system. Thanks for your comments, and yes, I agree that we should try to see if cloning or brain dumps of some sort can be applied to Mark Kettenis. ;) -- Gordon Matzigkeit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> //\ I'm a FIG (http://www.fig.org/) Lovers of freedom, unite! \// I use GNU (http://www.gnu.org/) [Unfortunately, www.fig.org is broken. Please stay tuned for details.]
