>>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?
Some packages event depend on libstdc++-v3 even if gcc-3.3 is installed. I suggested virtuals for each libstdc++-version a long time ago since they are provided by either gcc or seperate libstdc++ ebuilds. It was rejected by i think vapier or azarah. Furthermore, i suggested that portage may analyse installed binaries for dependency on a specific libstc++ version and it may record an additional depency for such packages. This would solve the "emerge depclean uninstalls in-use libstdc++ library" easily. Of course, this might need heavy changes to portage.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
