Graham Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 09:37:16PM +0100, Otto Wyss wrote:
> > > On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 10:45:32AM +0000, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 07:55:03PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > What not rename linux-kernel-headers to simple system-headers-linux?
> > > > > This will prevent confused users (or: lazy to read the description
> > > > > users)
> > > > > from asking this again and again.
> > > >
> > > > system-headers-linux is a bit vague and without knowing could be
> > > > associated with the kernel just as strongly as with libc.
> > > >
> > > > How about libc-linux-headers?
> > >
> > > I second that, or perhaps libc6-linux-headers.
> >
> > If the package would have been named "libc6-linux-headers" to show its
> > strong relationship with libc6 I had never started this thread. I'm not
> > a fan of renaming but in this case IMO it seems to be appropriate.
>
> But then the package would have to be changed for a new SONAME. And I
> don't see any benefits of using libc6-linux-headers, as opposed to
> libc-linux-headers.
>
> --
> gram
We also have libc6.1 on several archs.
How about glibc-linux-headers. glibc is the source package. It won't
be confused with other libcs like uclibc and it doesn't change accross
archs or when the soname changes.
MfG
Goswin
