dietlibc

[Kevin Kofler]

Jon Ciesla wrote:
> I see no reason not to keep dietlibc around for development use, but I'd
> rather see packages use glibc.

We agree then. But if we want to keep dietlibc, it needs to be fixed to 
comply with the packaging guidelines and best practices, i.e.:
* Shared library build needs to be enabled. I see no reason to build this 
library as static only as Enrico is doing. We tolerate this where upstream 
does not support shared builds at all, but this is not the case here.
* The main package should contain the shared library (and the documentation 
that's relevant at runtime, in particular COPYING) only. Right now it 
contains some stuff which probably belongs into -devel.
* The main package must not require -devel as it does now.
* The -devel package should not contain the static library, which should 
instead be in a -static subpackage.
* The -lib package (which is currently not built by default, it contains the 
shared library if you enable shared build) should simply be the main 
package. It doesn't make sense to have a -lib subpackage of a library.
* The -header subpackage should really be called -headers (There's more than 
one header! And it'd also be consistent with glibc.) or folded into -devel 
(though then it can't be noarch anymore).

        Kevin Kofler