Re: New control field proposal which could help on gcc3.2 transition
On Thu, Sep 12, 2002 at 11:40:46PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> I hadn't gotten that impression. At first glance, it looks a lot like
> it would break any third party binaries that use C++ libs, which,
> unless g++ upstream was what was modified, would still be looking in
> the default ld.so paths. That'd pretty much defeat the pupose.
I thought it was pretty clear that there's the underlying assumption
that this would have to be pushed upstream for it to be effective. The
question was more "what's a good backwards-compatible way of solving
the problem" and not "what do we, Debian, want to do to solve *our*
problem".
--
Marcelo
Reply to: