Re: libgl1 vs C++ transition, round 2
On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 04:52:57PM +0100, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> As I understand the situation, the need for a transition comes from the
> fact that the mangling of symbols is different across different
> releases of the g++ compiler. That means you have libfoo.so.1
> exporting different symbols depending on which compiler was used,
> effectively creating two different versions of the library which happen
> to have the same soname. We are just hacking our way arround the
> problem by ensuring that it's not possible to install a package with a
> mixed set of libraries.
>
> In particular, it is _not_ a problem if a program ends up linking
> against two different libstdc++ libraries, right? It's inefficient,
> but otherwise irrelevant. I just want to make sure before I remove the
> otherwise misleading "c102" bit from the libglu1c102 package.
I believe that this is correct. There may be corner case problems with
exception handling, but it won't break the way other things do; and
since libGLU could be implemented in C I doubt people rely on exception
handling working through it. I believe the two won't interfere.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer
Reply to: