recompile needed for xlib6g (>= 3.3.5-1) instead of (>= 3.3.2.3a-2) ?
[posted this to -mentors 40 hours ago without an answer, so perhaps I'll try -devel instead] I recently uploaded i386 packages that were build on a slink system upgraded to potato's libc6 and C compilers (everything else is slink). These packages (xcolmix and xplot) have this depends line: Depends: libc6 (>= 2.1), libforms0.88, xlib6g (>= 3.3.2.3a-2) Now I built an all-potato chroot environment and notice that the potato xlib6g-dev package creates a depency line: Depends: libc6 (>= 2.1), libforms0.88, xlib6g (>= 3.3.5-1) Should I rebuild the i386 binaries with the new xlib6g-dev and upload them with .0.1 version number suffix? Or perhaps it doesn't matter? Thanks for the usual great help, -- Peter Galbraith, research scientist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 6623'rd GNU/Linux user at the Counter - http://counter.li.org/
Re: recompile needed for xlib6g (>= 3.3.5-1) instead of (>= 3.3.2.3a-2) ?
On Fri, 1 Oct 1999, Peter S Galbraith wrote: > [posted this to -mentors 40 hours ago without an answer, so > perhaps I'll try -devel instead] > > I recently uploaded i386 packages that were build on a slink system > upgraded to potato's libc6 and C compilers (everything else is > slink). These packages (xcolmix and xplot) have this depends > line: > > Depends: libc6 (>= 2.1), libforms0.88, xlib6g (>= 3.3.2.3a-2) > > Now I built an all-potato chroot environment and notice that the potato > xlib6g-dev package creates a depency line: > > Depends: libc6 (>= 2.1), libforms0.88, xlib6g (>= 3.3.5-1) > > Should I rebuild the i386 binaries with the new xlib6g-dev > and upload them with .0.1 version number suffix? Or perhaps it > doesn't matter? As far as xlib6g is concerned, I don't think it does matter. As a general rule, as long as you can run the result in potato without using oldlibs packages, it should be fine. [ Personal note: Most of the packages I maintain depend on libc6 and nothing more. For this reason I have not upgraded to potato yet. This way my uploads are usable by both slink and potato users ]. BTW: If libforms0.88 is actually the "current" libforms in potato, then you could have even avoided completely the upgrade of libc6 and compilers. It seems your package should run ok on a potato machine even if it was compiled on a slink system. Thanks. -- "93ae05efde18fe439546b944aa06d657" (a truly random sig)
Re: recompile needed for xlib6g (>= 3.3.5-1) instead of (>= 3.3.2.3a-2) ?
Santiago Vila wrote: > I wrote > > > I recently uploaded i386 packages that were build on a slink system > > upgraded to potato's libc6 and C compilers (everything else is > > slink). These packages (xcolmix and xplot) have this depends > > line: > > > > Depends: libc6 (>= 2.1), libforms0.88, xlib6g (>= 3.3.2.3a-2) > > > > Now I built an all-potato chroot environment and notice that the potato > > xlib6g-dev package creates a depency line: > > > > Depends: libc6 (>= 2.1), libforms0.88, xlib6g (>= 3.3.5-1) > > > > Should I rebuild the i386 binaries with the new xlib6g-dev > > and upload them with .0.1 version number suffix? Or perhaps it > > doesn't matter? > > As far as xlib6g is concerned, I don't think it does matter. > > As a general rule, as long as you can run the result in potato without > using oldlibs packages, it should be fine. Okay, I'm just cautious about `should run'. I guess I compiled agaisnt glib2.1 such that any problems that might crop up would be found and fixed before the freeze. > BTW: If libforms0.88 is actually the "current" libforms in potato, then > you could have even avoided completely the upgrade of libc6 and compilers. > It seems your package should run ok on a potato machine even if it was > compiled on a slink system. libforms0.88 was the "current" libforms in potato when I posted this, but now it's libforms0.89 but that is drop in compatible with 0.88. In fact the 0.89 packages creates the compatibility symlink: ./usr/X11R6/lib/libforms.so.0.88 -> libforms.so.0.89 so recompiles against libforms.so.0.89 aren't strictly necessary. Thanks for your answer. -- Peter Galbraith, research scientist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 6623'rd GNU/Linux user at the Counter - http://counter.li.org/
Re: recompile needed for xlib6g (>= 3.3.5-1) instead of (>= 3.3.2.3a-2) ?
On Tue, Oct 05, 1999 at 11:43:14AM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote: > On Fri, 1 Oct 1999, Peter S Galbraith wrote: > > Should I rebuild the i386 binaries with the new xlib6g-dev > > and upload them with .0.1 version number suffix? Or perhaps it > > doesn't matter? > > As far as xlib6g is concerned, I don't think it does matter. But it might. There *have* been changes to the libraries between 3.3.2.3 and 3.3.5. No, I don't think any interfaces have changed. But just to err on the side of caution, would anyone doing what Santiago is doing PLEASE recompile their packages against the latest versions of the potato libraries shortly before the potato freeze? Mixed slink/potato systems are temporary things. Potato will be around for a long time. So let us please make it internally consistent. -- G. Branden Robinson | One man's theology is another man's Debian GNU/Linux | belly laugh. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Robert Heinlein cartoon.ecn.purdue.edu/~branden/ | pgpZYewiWNMsA.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: recompile needed for xlib6g (>= 3.3.5-1) instead of (>= 3.3.2.3a-2) ?
On Tue, 5 Oct 1999, Branden Robinson wrote: > On Tue, Oct 05, 1999 at 11:43:14AM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote: > > On Fri, 1 Oct 1999, Peter S Galbraith wrote: > > > Should I rebuild the i386 binaries with the new xlib6g-dev > > > and upload them with .0.1 version number suffix? Or perhaps it > > > doesn't matter? > > > > As far as xlib6g is concerned, I don't think it does matter. > > But it might. There *have* been changes to the libraries between 3.3.2.3 > and 3.3.5. No, I don't think any interfaces have changed. > > But just to err on the side of caution, would anyone doing what Santiago is > doing PLEASE recompile their packages against the latest versions of the > potato libraries shortly before the potato freeze? > > Mixed slink/potato systems are temporary things. Potato will be around for > a long time. So let us please make it internally consistent. You seem to imply that a package compiled under slink saying xlib6g (>= 3.3.2.3a-2) "might" not work ok under potato. Well, if this is the case, then IMHO it would be a bug, that we should better discover and fix rather than not discover and not fix it. Thanks. -- "d3b4a86229ffa32d21ca6b60a5e15b21" (a truly random sig)
