Re: Coexistence of gcc 3.2 and gcc 2.95

2002-07-31 Thread Alexei Khlebnikov
>> I think, libs compiled with gcc 2.95 just should reside in separate >> directory, say, /usr/lib/gcc-2.95-compat. Gcc 3.2.x should be run as >> gcc or gcc-3.2. Gcc 2.95.x should be run as gcc-2.95. > >That will work; the question then is how to automatically create all >those packages - you'ld n

Re: Coexistence of gcc 3.2 and gcc 2.95

2002-07-30 Thread Martin v. Loewis
"Alexei Khlebnikov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I think, libs compiled with gcc 2.95 just should reside in separate > directory, say, /usr/lib/gcc-2.95-compat. Gcc 3.2.x should be run as > gcc or gcc-3.2. Gcc 2.95.x should be run as gcc-2.95. That will work; the question then is how to automat

Re: Coexistence of gcc 3.2 and gcc 2.95

2002-07-30 Thread Alexei Khlebnikov
> When g++ 3.2 becomes the next Debian compiler, it will be necessary to > recompile a lot of packages. Also, it will be necessary to have the > old binary packages, and their shared libraries, coexist. > > Is there a specific plan to implement this coexistence? I can think of > the following strat

Re: Coexistence of gcc 3.2 and gcc 2.95

2002-07-27 Thread Martin v. Loewis
Jack Howarth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >I think the primary problem debian will have with gcc 3.2 (or > 3.1.1 for that matter) is dealing with rebuilding glibc under it. > Because the gcc 3.1 fixed a bug relating to incorrectly linking in > libgcc symbols into binaries, glibc trunk and glibc

re: Coexistence of gcc 3.2 and gcc 2.95

2002-07-27 Thread Jack Howarth
Martin, I think the primary problem debian will have with gcc 3.2 (or 3.1.1 for that matter) is dealing with rebuilding glibc under it. Because the gcc 3.1 fixed a bug relating to incorrectly linking in libgcc symbols into binaries, glibc trunk and glibc-2-2-branch have fixes to address this thr