* Laszlo (Laca) Peter <laca at sun.com> [2007-03-15 11:40]: > On Thu, 2007-03-15 at 11:20 -0700, Stephen Hahn wrote: > > > > > Sure thing. The problem is with the ABI differences between > > > > > g++-compiled and Sun Studio-compiled c++ libs. One possibility > > > > > is shipping 2 variants (/usr/lib/g++/libgtkmm-2.4.so?). > > > > > > > > Do we know how many other GNOME apps/components might use gtkmm? > > > > > > http://www.gtkmm.org/extra.shtml > > > > Thanks. The reason I ask was to see if we could completely bury them > > inside an Inkscape directory, but it appears not. One non-insane > > possibility is that (unlike licensing), we could handle the name > > conflict between two distinct ABI compiled libraries using > > /usr/gnu/lib for the alternate C++ ABI. > > It would make sense, since it's "GNU-related", but I'm slightly worried > that /usr/gnu becomes a swamp if we find more and more uses for it. Agree: that's why licensing partitions are out.
> There's also a theoretical problem. Probably no such thing really > exists, but let's say we have Solaris libfoo in /usr/lib and > GNU libfoo, which is implemented in c++. Which build goes > into /usr/gnu/lib g++ or Forte? Where do we put the other one? It doesn't solve the two-by-two case, true. Is there an example of this you can think of? (Another approach would be to not use directories, but a filename convention, like libgtkmm_abi2 (as was done for hardware capabilities in libc).) - Stephen -- Stephen Hahn, PhD Solaris Kernel Development, Sun Microsystems stephen.hahn at sun.com http://blogs.sun.com/sch/
