Re: GCC 3.2 transition

Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Jeff Bailey planned to put these libraries in /usr/lib/gcc-2.95 (like > > in the libc5/6 transition) and rename the packages containing the 2.95 > > libraries. > > How would this work? Would those using gcc-2.95 software have to set an > rpath or $L

Re: GCC 3.2 transition

Matthew Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > All of them? I sw someone do a count and there were around 1000 packages > currently in the archive. 10%. Per architecture. Is Jeff really going > to bNMU all of these packages on the same day for all architectures? I think this is the plan. You'll

Re: GCC 3.2 transition

Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I sincerely hope that g++ 3.2 applications will be allowed to coexist on > the system with g++ 2.95.x applications. I don't think this will happen, atleast not for shared libraries. Any scheme that tries to solve this problem will be horribly complex

Re: GCC 3.2 transition

Matthew Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > This is a proposal. You will be notified when this is a real plan I think Jeff Bailey's plan is entirely different, and I like his plan more. Here are the differences. > * If you maintain a library written in C++, add a `c' to the end of >