On Mon, Aug 19, 2002 at 11:32:24AM +0100, Richard Kettlewell wrote: > Panu A Kalliokoski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Well, it is sufficient that the linker gets the additional > > information from somewhere. Of the two ways (hacking the linker to > > use different versions depending on the ABI, or having two dynamic > > linkers) the latter is IMO cleaner, but neither will break anything. > > I'm not yet convinced that the "hack the linker" approach actually > works properly; it requires Debian to move one set of libraries (say, > those with the older ABI) to a new path. It can and may do this for > libraries in Debian packages, but cannot and must not for libraries > installed into /usr/local.
That problem shouldn't arise if the hack is done the other way round: new libraries go to /usr/lib/gcc3.2, say, in cases where the ABI differs. It does mean we can never get rid of it, but if the C++ ABI changes in later versions of G++ then we may have to repeat this transition in future anyway. -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
