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