Re: EGCS 1.0 is out
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: EGCS 1.0 is out
- From: Nikita Schmidt <email@example.com>
- Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 13:10:57 +0000
- Message-id: <[🔎] firstname.lastname@example.org>
- In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.3.96.971203223359.2222E-100000@Wakko.ualberta.ca>; from Jason Gunthorpe on Wed, Dec 03, 1997 at 10:36:31PM -0700
- References: <Pine.GSO.3.96.971203232451.12891A-100000@drabble> <Pine.LNX.3.96.971203223359.2222E-100000@Wakko.ualberta.ca>
On Wednesday, 3 Dec, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> Could we possible separate libg++ and libstdc++? I don't think there is
> much reason to include libg++ in Base, but libstdc++ definately should be
> in there. I do admit I don't have any idea how much C++ code in debian
> makes use of the special G++ constructs so this might be a bad idea!
I think it is better to separate libg++ and libstdc++. If I'm not
mistaken, the only Debian package on my system that uses libg++ is menu.
Speaking of egcs, I think since it comes with libstdc++ and has libg++
as an add-on to its source tree, these libraries should be built as
separate binary packages from the egcs source package.
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to email@example.com .