Re: glibc 2.2 and gcc (Was Re: something completely different)
On Thu, 3 Aug 2000, Ben Collins wrote:
> > I assume it identifies as libc6.2. Then it will build with another
> > soname. However I would like to have something like a staging area for
> > glibc, binutils and libstdc++, before an upload is done. Currently I
> > don't know of any incompatibilities between 2.1 and 2.2, which should
> > affect libstdc++ ...
>
> My limited tests on sparc, i386 and powerpc show no incompatibilites. I do
> agree with a staging area, and that was my next suggestion. Problem is,
> how do we stage for this to keep all C++ applications from breaking? Will
> we need a libstdc++2.10-glibc2.1 like with the 2.0->2.1 upgrade had, and
> if so, what will I need to do to enable this?
>
> I've Cc'd alpha list to ask about the package name currently involved
> (libc6.1) will that need to change to 6.2? What about libc0.2 for hurd?
If it identifies itself as libc6.2, then yes, the package name should
change to libc6.2 (if this happens on all archs, we can FINALLY be inline
with the rest of the archs).
I'm also concerned about the C++ application breakage, so keep me posted
on this. As soon as potato is released, I'll upgrade my Alpha to woody
and participate more, as per normal. If I understand correctly, we'll
probably need a transition package like a libstdc++2.10-glibc2.2, FYI.
Matthias, fyi, the last gcc snapshot that you packaged had bootstrap
problems on alpha, so it wouldn't build. I'm going to check the latest
CVS snapshot probably tomorrow and see if things build ok (I'm getting
access to a dual-processor EV6, so the build should take much less time).
C
Reply to: