| 1 |
Why exactly isn't libstdc++ a separate package anyway? |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
We already have glibc as a separate package, so why the difference? |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 8:47 AM, Mike Gilbert <floppym@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 11:05 AM, Nick Vinson <nvinson234@×××××.com> |
| 8 |
> wrote: |
| 9 |
> > That definition definitely excludes automake and autoconf (arguably gcc |
| 10 |
> > should also excluded, under that definition, so the wiki might not be |
| 11 |
> > 100% correct). |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> gcc provides libstdc++.so.6, which is a necessary runtime component on |
| 14 |
> most systems. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> |
Archives