maillog: 27/08/2005-02:46:03(+0200): Bjarke Istrup Pedersen types > I must say I have been wondering about this for a while too. > A solution might be add some sort of flag to packages that are binary, > and then let portage install libstdc++ the first time you install this > kind of package.
You mean, like have binary packages depend on virtual/libstdc++-SOMEVERSION and have virtual/libstdc++ provided by gcc or the split-out libstdc++ ebuild? > Mike Frysinger skrev: > > On Fri, Aug 26, 2005 at 10:14:04AM +0100, Chris Bainbridge wrote: > > > >>Subject says it all - is there any reason why 3.4.4 installs either > >>gcc-3.3* or libstdc++-v3 built with gcc-3.3? > > > > > > because i got tired of people complaining about broken systems when they > > emerged gcc-3.4.4 and cleaned out all gcc-3.3.x versions from their system > > > > > >>Is it possible to compile > >>a native 3.4 system without the old gcc if I don't need binary > >>compatibility? > > > > > > i just add libstdc++-v3 to my package.provided in /etc/portage/profile/ and > > call it a day > > > > i dont really see there being a clean solution until we have portage > > support > > to track ABI dependencies > > -mike > > -- > gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list > -- \ Georgi Georgiev \ Professor: This is gonna be one hell of a \ / [EMAIL PROTECTED] / bowel movement. Afterwards, he'll be lucky / \ +81(90)2877-8845 \ if he has any bones left. \
pgpsPIa2KADCP.pgp
Description: PGP signature
