> > > 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.
>
Joost,
I thought I was polite, but I try to be even nicer ;)
Debian happily uses some derivatives of commercial developmental suits.
The most obvious example would be -dmotif and -smotif packages in contrib.
Could you please explain me how could the maintainer of such a package
be able to compile them _after_ installing hamm? (S/he is supposed to be
on the edge and not to wait till it is released -- right?)
The problem is that Motif is only available in libc5 "form" _yet_.
Sometimes packages to compile are written in C++ which would require
libg++27-altdev. Furthermore, as this is X development, this would require
all X libraries to be libc5 compatible (as far as I understand, they are
both libc5 and libc6 compatible and probably won't require -altdev or
libc5-compat package. Correct me if I am wrong.) The only frequently
required library for X development wich is _not_ part of standard X
distribution left is xpm. Therefore I was wondering about availability
of xpm4.7-altdev.
> 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?
>
I sincerely hope I cleared the need for that.
> As far as I knew, altdev stuff was only interim stuff, to make the
> transition easier.
>
Yes, but even _after_ hamm is releaed the will be many people with
libc5 Motif, doing _development_.
>
> 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.
I surely understand the difficulties. That's why I proposed to have
2 unstable trees (for libc5 and libc6) some time ago. In this case
we could avoid at least libc5 - libc6 compatibility problems.
Thank you.
Alex Y.
PS Do you think this discussion should rather go to debian-devel ?
> Who needs a signature of 14 lines?
I do. And you are the first one being irritated by that :(
--
_
_( )_
( (o___
| _ 7 '''
\ (") (O O)
/ \ \ +---------------oOO--(_)--------------------+
| \ __/ <-- | Alexander Yukhimets [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
| | | http://pages.nyu.edu/~aqy6633/ |
( / +-------------------------oOO---------------+
\ / |__|__|
) /(_ || ||
| (___) ooO Ooo
\___)
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble?
e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
