On Tue, Jan 05, 1999 at 12:51:15AM -0600, Gordon Matzigkeit wrote:
>
> MB> Ok. This requires only minor manual changes to the debian control
> MB> files. However, auto.compilation is not easily possible with
> MB> those changes necessary.
>
> Could you elaborate on the problem that you see th
Hi!
[For everybody... if you got mail bounces from my address, it's
because my first computer's motherboard died, and my second computer's
power supply died. Things should be remedied now.]
> Marcus Brinkmann writes:
>> The better solution is to change libncurses' soname when we start
>>
On Mon, Dec 28, 1998 at 12:28:42PM -0600, Gordon Matzigkeit wrote:
>
> MB> We would then have libc0.2, libc0.3, libc0.4 etc packages, and
> MB> binary packages depending on them. We would only maintain one set
> MB> of development packages. Can you explain the drawbacks of this
> MB> simple so
Hi!
> Marcus Brinkmann writes:
MB> On Sun, Dec 27, 1998 at 10:35:38PM -0600, Gordon Matzigkeit
MB> wrote:
MB> We would then have libc0.2, libc0.3, libc0.4 etc packages, and
MB> binary packages depending on them. We would only maintain one set
MB> of development packages. Can you explain
On Sun, Dec 27, 1998 at 10:35:38PM -0600, Gordon Matzigkeit wrote:
>
> MB> We would then have libc0.2, libc0.3, libc0.4 etc packages, and
> MB> binary packages depending on them. We would only maintain one set
> MB> of development packages. Can you explain the drawbacks of this
> MB> simple so
Hi!
> Marcus Brinkmann writes:
MB> Why can't we just bump the soname each time the hurd-i386 glibc
MB> packages have an incompatible API change? Note that you can have
MB> multiple libc6 packages with different sonames installed, so old
MB> binaries will continue to work. The versioned de
On Wed, Dec 23, 1998 at 02:18:37PM -0600, Gordon Matzigkeit wrote:
> 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 h
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 thi
> Hi!
>
> > Santiago Vila writes:
>
> >> The current soname is libc.so.0.2 which suggest that you should
> >> use something like libc0_2.
>
> I'm now using libc0.2 as the package name, which I agree is correct.
Really? Truly? I will defer to the wisdom of those with experience with
debi
Hi!
> Santiago Vila writes:
>> The current soname is libc.so.0.2 which suggest that you should
>> use something like libc0_2.
I'm now using libc0.2 as the package name, which I agree is correct.
SV> Does this mean that some day there will be some move like the
SV> libc5 -> libc6 in Linu
10 matches
Mail list logo
