Re: 3.2 transition
On Mon, Dec 16, 2002 at 08:56:43PM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> On the FAQ:
> Why don't we put the libs in a different directory?
> Basically, it's too complex. For the glibc transition, we could do
> this because they used different dynamic linkers. For this
> transition, there is also little to gain in having full backwards
> compatibility to the old ABI. The only gain is that third party
> binary only applications that dynamically link to C++ using-libs
> (other than the stdc++ library itself) continue to work. The only
> common case that comes to mind for this is libqt2 and kdelibs3. Both
> of these packages are old, so to keep binary compatibility with
> previous versions of our distribution (and some other distributions)
> is easy. We continue to build libqt2 and all dependant packages with
> g++-2.95. Anything using libqt3, will build with the new ABI, along
> with other C++ libraries.
> I've thought having a directory for doing LD_LIBRARY_PATH might help people keep compatibility
> with other dists or legacy applications,
That's reasonable, I suppose. It would have to be for the oldlibs
version; then we could do it after we're into the transition. The new
versions should go in the normal locations IMO.
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer