| 1 |
On Saturday 26 June 2004 03:15 pm, Sven Köhler wrote: |
| 2 |
> why should everybody have libstdc++-v3 installed? just some ebuilds that |
| 3 |
> install pre-compiled software will depend on specific libstdc++ versions. |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
if you make me a comprehensive list of every binary c++ app/plugin in the |
| 6 |
portage tree linked against the old libstdc++, i'll update their |
| 7 |
dependencies. however, i dont assume anyone maintaining an app will |
| 8 |
automatically realise that this dependency is needed if using gcc 3.4... and |
| 9 |
there are a -lot- of ebuilds that would need updating, most of which arent |
| 10 |
even supported on my arch (so i cant test and dont want to touch them |
| 11 |
myself). perhaps spanky's idea of just slamming another binary into |
| 12 |
lib-compat is a good one... |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> there also another point: somebody having gcc-3.2 or gcc-3.3 installed |
| 15 |
> doesn't need libstdc++-v3 too, and the gentoo-way of solving that is to |
| 16 |
> use virtuals. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
true. but using profiles is a useful solution until we can get to -every- |
| 19 |
binary in the tree. :) |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
i even have a new dev on x86 who's interested in working on gcc-porting bugs |
| 22 |
and getting x86 ready for gcc 3.4: morfic. so this might be much more of an |
| 23 |
issue in the not-so-distant future... and one i will shamelessly drop in his |
| 24 |
lap. mwuahahahaha, it's good to have minions =D |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Travis Tilley <lv@g.o> |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives