Alan DuBoff wrote: > On Sat, 25 Aug 2007, michael schuster wrote: > >> I don't have a solution either ... but I've been thinking: can't we >> have a new *revision* of libCstd.so? I know far too little about libs >> and linking to know whether this is feasible, but couldn't "old" apps >> stick with "old" libCstd.so and newer ones with the new one - maybe >> have some linking glue that knows about versions, etc?
We could include the new RogueWave/Apache Standard C++ Library in Solaris, with the explicit caveat that it is binary incompatible with the existing libCstd.so.1 and that one must link either against one, or the other, but not both. > To me it seems that would cause problems, unless we renamed and created > a new one that new apps linked to. > > I really don't like the idea that we would be creating incompatabilities > between KDE and Solaris and/or force folks to use a one-off lib. The same situation exists, to a certain degree, today. One can link against libstlport4 instead of libCstd.so.1. The consequences are identical: applications linked against libstlport4 cannot be linked against, and are binary incompatible with, libCstd.so.1. > Seems that if Studio would compile BOOST, we'd have a solution. It seems > to me that the tools folks would want to make this happen. What did > Steve Clamage say about BOOST, did you ask him? > > I'm gonna cc him and see, maybe he can shed some light to this topic. > > Steve, is there any way you folks can help us get BOOST compiling with > SunStudio? I think it's important for the KDE project, to make sure that > we're ABI compatible. That was the whole idea of wanting a Studio > compiled version of KDE to begin with. If we have a one-off of BOOST, we > segregate ourself from our own community, that wouldn't be good, IMO. > > > -- > > Alan DuBoff - Solaris x86 IHV/OEM Group -- Stefan Teleman Sun Microsystems, Inc. Stefan.Teleman at Sun.COM
