Re: GCC 3.2 transition
On Mon, Aug 19, 2002 at 11:32:24AM +0100, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
> Panu A Kalliokoski <email@example.com> writes:
> > Well, it is sufficient that the linker gets the additional
> > information from somewhere. Of the two ways (hacking the linker to
> > use different versions depending on the ABI, or having two dynamic
> > linkers) the latter is IMO cleaner, but neither will break anything.
> I'm not yet convinced that the "hack the linker" approach actually
> works properly; it requires Debian to move one set of libraries (say,
> those with the older ABI) to a new path. It can and may do this for
> libraries in Debian packages, but cannot and must not for libraries
> installed into /usr/local.
That problem shouldn't arise if the hack is done the other way round:
new libraries go to /usr/lib/gcc3.2, say, in cases where the ABI
differs. It does mean we can never get rid of it, but if the C++ ABI
changes in later versions of G++ then we may have to repeat this
transition in future anyway.
Colin Watson [firstname.lastname@example.org]