Re: Try to solve shared libgcc and glibc

[James Antill <james at and dot org>]

Mark Kettenis <kettenis@wins.uva.nl> writes:

> Linux vendors will have to privide a libgcc_s package and use their
> dependency tracking system to make sure their users have an up to date
> version of libgcc installed.
> 
> People installing GCC from sources will have to copy the shared libgcc
> into /lib (or /usr/lib) manually if they use it to compile any stuff
> in / (or /usr).  I fail to understand why this means that GCC
> shouldn't install the shared libgcc by default.

 One problem I see, is that people currently don't expect there to be
an interoperability problem if they upgrade gcc.
 So for instance someone upgrades gcc to gcc-3.1, then create
rpms for packages. Then even though everything else is the same, if
others only have gcc-3.0 and stuff got added to libgcc then the rpms
won't work (and I can guarantee that 99% of people won't realize that
they need to start putting binary dependencies against libgcc, as they
do now with libc).

 This does assume that libgcc is going to have stuff added to it, but
then everyone seems to be suggesting that that would be ok.

-- 
# James Antill -- james@and.org
:0:
* ^From: .*james@and\.org
/dev/null