On Mon, Feb 21, 2005 at 03:28:10AM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Actually, there might be no need for virtual packages, since the tool
> > will be run at compile time and can look up which libc is in use.
>
> Libc would not be the only thing decide
Scripsit Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Sat, Feb 19, 2005 at 12:58:15AM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
>> I don't think there can be much argument that anything that Provides
>> c-compiler also has to make sure that standard header files like
>> or are present on the system. Otherwise it
On Sat, Feb 19, 2005 at 12:58:15AM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Joel Aelwyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > On Fri, Feb 18, 2005 at 09:17:55PM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
>
> >> But can one get a C compiler at all (at least a Debian-supplied one)
> >> without also pulling in an appropriate l
On Thu, Feb 17, 2005 at 02:05:56PM -0700, Joel Aelwyn wrote:
> So, while discussing a bug in a -dev with the maintainer, recently, it
> reminded me to review an old thread from d-devel regarding the weird
> situation with libc-dev as a pure virtual package.
>
> The summary is this:
>
> *) The 'li
Scripsit Joel Aelwyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Fri, Feb 18, 2005 at 09:17:55PM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
>> But can one get a C compiler at all (at least a Debian-supplied one)
>> without also pulling in an appropriate libc-dev? I would think
>> that "I need to compile $userspace package" *did*
On Fri, Feb 18, 2005 at 09:17:55PM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Joel Aelwyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > The reason given in the origional thread was that these Depends are not
> > solely for building Debian packages (when Build-Essential is reasonable to
> > expect), but for "I need to c
Scripsit Joel Aelwyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> The reason given in the origional thread was that these Depends are not
> solely for building Debian packages (when Build-Essential is reasonable to
> expect), but for "I need to compile $userspace package", which does *not*
> require B-E be installed, ac
On Fri, Feb 18, 2005 at 06:50:50PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2005 at 02:05:56PM -0700, Joel Aelwyn wrote:
> >
> > *) The standard way of doing this today is to have a -dev package which
> > needs libc headers Depend on 'libc6-dev | libc-dev' to avoid the situation
> > of having o
On Fri, Feb 18, 2005 at 06:30:42PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2005 at 02:05:56PM -0700, Joel Aelwyn wrote:
> > So, while discussing a bug in a -dev with the maintainer, recently, it
> > reminded me to review an old thread from d-devel regarding the weird
> > situation with libc-
On Thu, Feb 17, 2005 at 02:05:56PM -0700, Joel Aelwyn wrote:
>
> *) The standard way of doing this today is to have a -dev package which
> needs libc headers Depend on 'libc6-dev | libc-dev' to avoid the situation
> of having only a pure-virtual package.
Why does that rule exists anyway? It's al
On Thu, Feb 17, 2005 at 02:05:56PM -0700, Joel Aelwyn wrote:
> So, while discussing a bug in a -dev with the maintainer, recently, it
> reminded me to review an old thread from d-devel regarding the weird
> situation with libc-dev as a pure virtual package.
>
> The summary is this:
>
> *) The 'li
So, while discussing a bug in a -dev with the maintainer, recently, it
reminded me to review an old thread from d-devel regarding the weird
situation with libc-dev as a pure virtual package.
The summary is this:
*) The 'libc-dev' package is a pure virtual package, roughly meaning
"provides the he
12 matches
Mail list logo
