On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 08:56:01PM +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 04:03:18PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote: > > Package: libc6 > > Version: 2.11.2-11 > > Severity: wishlist > > > > Looking carefully at the contents of libc-bin, it appears that libc6 > > could just Recommends libc-bin, rather than having a Depends on it. > > Specifically, taking the contents of libc-bin piece by piece: > > > > /etc/bindresvport.blacklist > > > > Not required to run programs, just a workaround for a conflict between > > RPC and a handful of services. > > > > /etc/ld.so.conf.d/libc.conf > > > > Just adds /usr/local/lib; not a required component of a system. > > > > /etc/gai.conf > > While it is true, not having a dependency between the two makes very > difficult to handle the
Only if you want to customize it. > > Consists entirely of commented-out defaults. > > > > /sbin/ldconfig > > > > Maintaining ld.so.cache makes the system run faster, but the system will > > run without it. The only caveat: any library packages would need to > > only run it if it exists. > > Given that half of the packages does that in the postinst, that's a lot > to change. Until they are all changed, that just makes this change > totally impossible. Fair enough; that does seem like the biggest issue. Would you consider this change if those packages did so? Most packages don't do so by hand, so fixing the various package-building helper packages would get most of the way there. (Also briefly entertaining the notion of having some kind of divertable ldconfig -> /bin/true link. :) There's also the long-standing discussion about triggerizing ldconfig, though I realize that proves fairly intricate.) > > /usr/bin/catchsegv > > Ok > > > /usr/bin/getconf > > Required by POSIX > > > /usr/bin/getent > > /usr/bin/iconv > > Required by POSIX > > > /usr/bin/ldd > > Ok > > > /usr/bin/localedef > > /usr/bin/locale > > Required by POSIX > > > /usr/bin/tzselect > > /usr/bin/rpcinfo > > /usr/bin/zdump > > Ok > > > None required for a running system, just generally useful. > > As said above, most of them are need for POSIX compliance, they have to > stay on the system. I had no idea. That does seem to argue for the "Essential: yes" you suggest below, in which case reversing the dependency seems like the best solution. > > So, in general, nothing in libc-bin has to exist for the system to work, > > and only one thing (ldconfig) needs some extra care to make sure the > > system can cope without its presence. > > Half of the tool are necessary for POSIX compliance. Also libc-bin 2.13 > now provides a C.UTF-8 locale for Debian Policy compliance. Oh, awesome. I had no idea. Thank you very much, I look forward to that. Any straightforward way for a script (.bashrc, for instance) to detect the existence of C.UTF-8 in order to use it in preference to en_US.UTF-8 if present? > While I agree it's possible to run a half-broken system without libc-bin, > that doesn't mean you just want it to be recommended. libc-bin is less > than 750kB when installed, if you really want to gain space, I would > suggest you to start by looking at essential packages (or their > dependencies) taking a few MB. > > That's simply a wontfix for now, just to leave you the right to answer. > Otherwise I would just close this bug. Seriously if you want to make so > small system that you don't want to install libc-bin, just have a look > at emdebian or other solutions. Might you consider moving the manpages to glibc-doc or similar, perhaps? > > On the flipside, though, libc-bin probably needs "Depends: libc6", since > > it includes various programs that need libc6. > > > > (Related to this: neither libc6 nor libc-bin has "Essential: yes", so > > programs already can't count on them without a dependency.) > > All that said, I agree that we should drop the dependency from libc6 to > libc-bin (and add the dependency in the other direction), and just make > libc-bin essential. Fair enough. That would prove more convenient, and I'd appreciate it greatly. Thanks, Josh Triplett -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
