On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 19:47:53 -0400, Jeff Spaleta wrote: > about we not make over-reaching claims about what other operating > systems do about backwards compatibility. If ALL application writers in > the universe were linking statically to libsdc++ like Apple demanded > before the release 10.3.9 would there be much to talk about in this > thread? Nope, probably not, and bundling private libstdc++.so versions is likely to be the route we'll take. That's a shame because it's 3mb of overhead most apps don't want, but if there's no other way then so be it. > Holding the downstream distributor responsible for the lack of stability > is a bit.. short-sighted. Well, the whole point of soname versioning and renaming the library when it changes its exported interface is so they can be parallel installed. I don't think it's too much to ask that it's installed by default which is definitely a downstream decision. thanks -mike -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
