On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 19:47:53 -0400, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
about we not make over-reaching claims about what other operating
systems do about backwards compatibility. If ALL application writers in
the universe were linking statically to libsdc++ like Apple demanded
before the release 10.3.9 would there be much to talk about in this
thread?
Nope, probably not, and bundling private libstdc++.so versions is likely
to be the route we'll take. That's a shame because it's 3mb of overhead
most apps don't want, but if there's no other way then so be it.
Holding the downstream distributor responsible for the lack of
stability
is a bit.. short-sighted.
Well, the whole point of soname versioning and renaming the library when
it changes its exported interface is so they can be parallel installed. I
don't think it's too much to ask that it's installed by default which is
definitely a downstream decision.
thanks -mike