maillog: 27/08/2005-02:46:03(+0200): Bjarke Istrup Pedersen types
> 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?

> Mike Frysinger skrev:
> > On Fri, Aug 26, 2005 at 10:14:04AM +0100, Chris Bainbridge wrote:
> > 
> >>Subject says it all - is there any reason why 3.4.4 installs either
> >>gcc-3.3* or libstdc++-v3 built with gcc-3.3?
> > 
> > 
> > because i got tired of people complaining about broken systems when they 
> > emerged gcc-3.4.4 and cleaned out all gcc-3.3.x versions from their system
> > 
> > 
> >>Is it possible to compile
> >>a native 3.4 system without the old gcc if I don't need binary
> >>compatibility?
> > 
> > 
> > i just add libstdc++-v3 to my package.provided in /etc/portage/profile/ and 
> > call it a day
> > 
> > i dont really see there being a clean solution until we have portage support 
> > to track ABI dependencies
> > -mike
> 
> -- 
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
> 

-- 
\    Georgi Georgiev   \   Professor: This is gonna be one hell of a   \
 /    chutz@gg3.net     / bowel movement. Afterwards, he'll be lucky    /
\   +81(90)2877-8845   \  if he has any bones left.                    \