On 02/06/2012 10:00 AM, Petr Mladek wrote:
Stephan Bergmann píše v Pá 03. 02. 2012 v 22:10 +0100:
Petr, the best approach might be to build the "official" Linux LO
installation sets with explicit --with-system-stdlibs, so that the
installation sets do not bring along their own libgcc_s.so.1 and
libstdc++.so.6. If the installation sets are built on a sufficiently
old baseline system, it should be a pretty safe bet that each box on
which they are installed bring along sufficiently new versions of those
libs as part of the system.
Hmm, I am a bit scared to do such change at this stage. I am not sure
if the stdlibs are 100% backward compatible, it there are not
disabled some features on some crazy systems.
They *should* be backwards compatible since a very long time. But sure,
one never knows...
> Note that we already have 3.5.0-rc3
which is supposed to be final.
Yes, we should most probably not risk another rc for this issue.
One possibility would be to try system stdlibs in daily builds. Ask
people for testing. If we do not get any complains, we could try this
with 3.5.1`bug fix release that should get release 4 weeks from now.
Yes, sounds good. It would probably be good to have the packages
contain explicit dependencies on libstdc++.so.6 and libgcc_s.so.1. Then
again, not sure they are in like-named packages across distros
(libstdc++ and libgcc, resp., for Fedora, for example), and whether we
do that for any other system dependencies of our packages, anyway. We
can discuss this on TSC this week.
Stephan
_______________________________________________
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
