> > >
> > > I know we've gone to libc6, but I'm not quite clear on how to compile
> > > with libc5 instead. I know I need libc5-altdev. Do I need to remove
> > > libc6-dev, which also requires removal of libg++272-dev? And do I need
> > > to install anything else?
> >
> > What you should do:
> > install libc5-altdev and altgcc. libc5-altdev does _not_ conflict with
> > libc6. Then you'll need to do something with
> > your PATH so that the altgcc will be used by default instead of the
> > libc6 gcc. (Probably read /usr/doc/altgcc/* to find out what).
> >
> > One problem though: if you are compiling libg++ stuff, you'll also have
> > to install libg++272-altdev, and I didn't make that package.
> > (I'm the libg++ maintainer).
> >
> > If there is enough demand for a libg++272-altdev package, I'll release one,
> > though.
>
> Joost,
>
> are you kidding?
No, I'm dead serious. I now vow to never release a libg++272-altdev[1].
> You probably don't understand that ALL commercial
> develpmental suits are STILL using libc5 and will not be _available_
> for libc6 environment for at least half a year!
You probably don't understand libg++272-altdev is _only_ needed for
_Dev_elopment (that's why the "dev" is in the title). That is
to compile the source code, what is usually not available from
comercial stuff. And, do you expect Debian 2.0 to be available
within half a year? (yes, I'm kidding).
Further more, I said: If there is enough demand. So far, I haven't
seen _anyone_ who seriously (and politely) asked for a libg++272-altdev
package, nor have I ever seen any (commercial or otherwise) environment
where that may be needed.
I am not even aware of "commercial developmental suits" that need
libg++272-altdev, but if you or anyone else can show there existance,
and them being used with debian hamm, I'll make libg++272-altdev
available.
> _PLEASE_ guys, release all possible -altdev packages.
> What's going on with xpm4.7-altdev btw?
Who needs them? I need a libc6 svgalib package, but -altdev packages?
Never heard anyone seriously needing them.
BTW, do realise we are talking hamm here, not 1.3.1, bo, stable.
hamm is supposed to be compleately lib6 (but still supporting libc5
binaries). I didn't know we had a goal of supporting libc5 development.
Could you first make clear the need for that, rather than claiming
I'm kidding first?
As far as I knew, altdev stuff was only interim stuff, to make the
transition easier.
> _
> _( )_
> ( (o___
> | _ 7 '''
> \ (") (O O)
> / \ \ +---------------oOO--(_)--------------------+
> | \ __/ <-- | Alexander Yukhimets [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
> | | | http://pages.nyu.edu/~aqy6633/ |
> ( / +-------------------------oOO---------------+
> \ / |__|__|
> ) /(_ || ||
> | (___) ooO Ooo
> \___)
Who needs a signature of 14 lines?
Footnote
[1] If enough people seriously and politely ask me for a libg++27-altdev
package, that's different. I may release that (libg++272 is basically
glibc, libg++27 is libc5, so the altdev package has to be libg++27-altdev).
This then also means I've got to maintain two source trees, as
the upstream sources for the libc5 libg++ and the glibc libg++ are
different.
--
joost witteveen, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
#!/usr/bin/perl -sp0777i<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<j]dsj
$/=unpack('H*',$_);$_=`echo 16dio\U$k"SK$/SM$n\EsN0p[lN*1
lK[d2%Sa2/d0$^Ixp"|dc`;s/\W//g;$_=pack('H*',/((..)*)$/)
#what's this? see http://www.dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/rsa/
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble?
e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
