On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 11:02:46PM -0800, Hugh McIntyre wrote: > Danek Duvall wrote: >> On Mon, Feb 04, 2008 at 04:44:44PM -0600, Brian Cameron wrote: >> >> Any word from the compiler folks about how they'd like to see this project >> move forward? Or should we just let it time out as specified (with the >> interfaces changed to Committed)? > > Exactly. Although there seems to be agreement to have one libgc.so in the > end, which is fine, there's still no comment on what's planned to avoid two > incompatible libraries if someone installs Studio on top of Indiana. > > I.e.: is the assumed plan to issue a studio patch or new version to move or > upgrade the studio library? A warning to users? Or some other measure?
Another thing we need to know is the full SONAME for the libraries involved. For anyone looking to submit arc cases, please note: the *.so form of a library is *not* sufficient. Nor is the realpath()ed name of the link correct. We need to know what the SONAME is, as specified on the ld commandline with the -h flag. We've been seeing this mistake a lot recently. Studio appears to ship libgc.so.1. I know a lot of F/OSS libraries ship with version numbers other than 1, so there may not be a run-time issue, only a link-time issue, which can be pretty easily managed with the appropriate -L flags. Danek
