[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130308010918.GA21361@intma.in>
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2013 20:09:18 -0500
From: Kurt H Maier <khm-lists@...ma.in>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: musl vs. Debian policy
On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 04:22:06PM -0800, Isaac Dunham wrote:
>
> It's quite possible; the issue is whether we'd end up "encouraging" them to package musl in a way that guarantees incompatability with everyone else. If they install the x86_64 version as
> "/lib/ld-musl-amd64-el.so.1"
> (what dpkg-architecture might encourage if debian/rules installs libc.so itself), then musl on Debian amd64 would be incompatible with musl elsewhere.
Then their packaging policies have failed. This is still a Debian
problem and not a musl problem.
khm
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
