Re: libgl1 vs C++ transition, round 2

[Junichi Uekawa <dancer@netfort.gr.jp>]

>  As I understand the situation, the need for a transition comes from the
>  fact that the mangling of symbols is different across different
>  releases of the g++ compiler.  That means you have libfoo.so.1
>  exporting different symbols depending on which compiler was used,
>  effectively creating two different versions of the library which happen
>  to have the same soname.  We are just hacking our way arround the
>  problem by ensuring that it's not possible to install a package with a
>  mixed set of libraries.

There are quite a few symbols which look like they are exported from 
libGLU.so that look like name-mangled symbols.

But I am assuming that they aren't used.



regards,
	junichi