Le Lun 10 Avril 2006 19:41, Aurelien Jarno a écrit : > Anthony Towns a écrit : > > Hi, > > > > This is a reject of the new -bin packages (both of them). > > > > The issues with the -bin package are that it may cause upgrade > > problems, both in that upgrading from existing libc's may result in > > a broken system between the new libc6 being unpacked and the new > > libc-bin being installed (ldconfig not being available), and that > > when you have a new glibc from upstream, you may have problems with > > the new ldconfig (etc) requiring symbols from the new glibc, and > > ensuring they're installed correctly.
I hardly see how that's possible, given that ldconfig is a static binary. and given the fact that libc6 Depends upon libc-bin, the later will be unpacked, and the new ldconfig will overwrite the older one, and *just work*. The only current problem is that libc-bin depends upon libc6, which is fixeable (making it Essential, or using apropriate dh_slibdeps exclude, to avoid that dependency). With that, libc-bin is assured to be unpacked first, and a valid ldconfig will always exist on the sytem. libc-bin beeing configured or not. but that's fixeable. libc-bin can even be a Pre-Depends of libc6 if needed, but I honnestly don't think it's needed in its current shape. I think aurelien already answered pretty good to the other remarks. just my 2¢ -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O [EMAIL PROTECTED] OOO http://www.madism.org
pgp8OrPV8YCWc.pgp
Description: PGP signature
