Re: 3.2 transition

2002-12-17 Thread Martin v. Löwis
Junichi Uekawa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I've thought having a directory for doing LD_LIBRARY_PATH might help > people keep compatibility with other dists or legacy applications, > > thoughts? I think that should happen on a case-by-case basis, with a bias towards not providing the library.

Re: 3.2 transition

2002-12-16 Thread Daniel Jacobowitz
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

Re: 3.2 transition

2002-12-16 Thread Daniel Jacobowitz
On Mon, Dec 16, 2002 at 09:30:32AM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote: > Daniel Jacobowitz writes: > > On Sun, Dec 15, 2002 at 09:59:34PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote: > > > On Sun, Dec 15, 2002 at 11:16:41PM +, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote: > > > > * Daniel Jacobowitz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > > >

Re: 3.2 transition

2002-12-16 Thread Junichi Uekawa
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

Re: 3.2 transition

2002-12-16 Thread Matthias Klose
Daniel Jacobowitz writes: > On Sun, Dec 15, 2002 at 09:59:34PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote: > > On Sun, Dec 15, 2002 at 11:16:41PM +, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote: > > > * Daniel Jacobowitz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > > Reference: http://people.debian.org/~rmurray/c++transition.html, which >

Re: 3.2 transition

2002-12-15 Thread Daniel Jacobowitz
On Sun, Dec 15, 2002 at 09:59:34PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote: > On Sun, Dec 15, 2002 at 11:16:41PM +, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote: > > * Daniel Jacobowitz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > Reference: http://people.debian.org/~rmurray/c++transition.html, which > > > seems > > > to be the latest

Re: 3.2 transition

2002-12-15 Thread Ben Collins
On Sun, Dec 15, 2002 at 11:16:41PM +, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote: > * Daniel Jacobowitz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > Reference: http://people.debian.org/~rmurray/c++transition.html, which seems > > to be the latest copy. > > > > My understanding is that GCC 3.2 now works on all architectur

Re: 3.2 transition

2002-12-15 Thread Haroldo Gambini Santos
I have used gcc 3.2 for some time, in a Mandrake 9.0 Linux box. The speed improvement is amazing, however, I had a problem with gdb, that does not works will with this gcc version. In fact, you can't print local variables, for example. So, I'm very happy with Debian and the gcc 2.95 version by no

Re: 3.2 transition

2002-12-15 Thread Dr. David Alan Gilbert
* Daniel Jacobowitz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Reference: http://people.debian.org/~rmurray/c++transition.html, which seems > to be the latest copy. > > My understanding is that GCC 3.2 now works on all architectures. That means > we're now past the last big blocker waiting for the transition.