Some notes on building gcc-4.3.0

Shankar Unni shankarunni@netscape.net
Mon Jun 18 20:34:00 GMT 2007


Brian Dessent wrote:

> Does this mean that we'll start to libgcc_s.dll's sprouting like
> mushrooms in the install dirs of various apps, or in *gasp*
> %WINDIR%/system32 over the coming years?  Is this library versioned at
> all?  What about conflicts?

You already see the effects of this in the Linux world, with the more 
recent distributions having to ship a set of compat_libgcc_blah packages 
for each major (ABI-incompatible) previous release going back (they're 
on 4.1/4.2 these days, and there's one for 3.3 and one for 2.9).

And most commercial/non-free software shipped on Linux (e.g. Oracle, 
Java, ..) just states explicitly which packages they depend on.

So if I may offer a blueprint going forwards:

* introduce a libgcc_something package containing the latest DLLs/.so's, 
and include it in the Base package.

* later, if these are ever incompatibly ABI-rev'ed, switch the default 
distribution to the new version, and introduce a compat-libgcc-* package 
for the old version (which preserves their filename), and include that 
in the Libs package.


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/



More information about the Cygwin mailing list