On Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 08:14:51PM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Feb 2001, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Is anyone able to build the compatibility libraries?
> They are already built.
> My view is all we have to do is include them and the relevent source to
> not violate the GPL. We don't have to actually go out and compile them
> using the woody environment.
Hmm. On i386, at least:
libstdc++2.10-glibc2.2 is from gcc-2.95
libstdc++2.10 is from gcc
libstdc++2.9-glibc2.1 is from egcs1.1
libstdc++2.8 is from egcs1.0
So that's probably do-able, but extremely messy. On m68k (potato), there
are -glibc2.1 and glibc2.0 versions of 2.9 and 2.10, from different
versions of the same source package, though, so they need to either be
rebuilt or one set of them needs to be removed.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``_Any_ increase in interface difficulty, in exchange for a benefit you
do not understand, cannot perceive, or don't care about, is too much.''
-- John S. Novak, III (The Humblest Man on the Net)
Attachment:
pgpgxUze5MKDD.pgp
Description: PGP signature