Re: a couple notes on the libc 2.1 packages
On Sun, Feb 14, 1999 at 03:23:33PM -0500, Zack Weinberg wrote:
>
> Actually all of these pertain only to the auxiliary packages.
>
> - The egcs-based gcc package should conflict with and replace egcc.
> Otherwise, you need to manually remove egcc before installing the new
> gcc package, or dpkg will complain about several zillion file conflicts.
>
> - There's something weird going on with the libstdc++ packages.
> libstdc++ linked with libc 2.1 is supposed to be backward compatible
> with C++ binaries linked with libc 2.0. (If this doesn't work,
> upstream would really like to know about it.) The libstdc++ packages
> have been set up such that a C++ program linked with the old
> libstdc++2.9 keeps using it, and this does not work. So any C++
> program segfaults until relinked.
As I understand it, the new libstdc++ packages should have the same
soname as the previous ones - still saying libc6.0 if they had
previously. But the libstdc++ api patch uses __GLIBC_MAJOR__ and
__GLIBC_MINOR__ - not the soname! Is this the wrong behavior? I
suspect so.
Dan
/--------------------------------\ /--------------------------------\
| Daniel Jacobowitz |__| CMU, CS class of 2002 |
| Debian GNU/Linux Developer __ Part-Time Systems Programmer |
| dan@debian.org | | drow@cs.cmu.edu |
\--------------------------------/ \--------------------------------/
Reply to: