[gentoo-dev] why does gcc-3.4.x depend on gcc-3.3.x / libstdc++?

[gentoo-dev] why does gcc-3.4.x depend on gcc-3.3.x / libstdc++?

[Chris Bainbridge]

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? Is it possible to compile
a native 3.4 system without the old gcc if I don't need binary
compatibility?

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] why does gcc-3.4.x depend on gcc-3.3.x / libstdc++?

[Mike Frysinger]

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] why does gcc-3.4.x depend on gcc-3.3.x / libstdc++?

[Bjarke Istrup Pedersen]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

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.

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

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFDD7fLO+Ewtpi9rLERAi3NAJsEKnxeVaCrJUl6dSvaU1zP3J4OpwCgxa5v
HfmJvCp8XDXDYAyFpYDoNu0=
=bV8B
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] why does gcc-3.4.x depend on gcc-3.3.x / libstdc++?

[Georgi Georgiev]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1473 bytes --]

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.                    \

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: why does gcc-3.4.x depend on gcc-3.3.x / libstdc++?

[Sven Köhler]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 955 bytes --]

>>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.


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 253 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] why does gcc-3.4.x depend on gcc-3.3.x / libstdc++?

[Petteri Räty]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Bjarke Istrup Pedersen wrote:
> 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.
> 

This does not solve the following problem:
1. user upgrades to gcc-3.4.x
2. gcc-config to 3.4.x
3. emerge -P gcc

Because libstdc++ has a different name (.6) in 3.4.x than the .5 in
3.3.X all the packages linked against the old one are borked and this
includes python meaning that emerge does not work until you for example
make a symlink from the .6 to .5. I recently run into this when
reinstalling my desktop after a broken hard drive.

Regards,
Petteri Räty (Betelgeuse)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFDEHpTcxLzpIGCsLQRAoOLAJwPpe3od7YvvqpQQkFE5zKbvEQgQQCdG7KG
f07PYC8yAD+EJuBzyjT7cX8=
=Trg6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] why does gcc-3.4.x depend on gcc-3.3.x / libstdc++?

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1225 bytes --]

On Sat, 2005-08-27 at 02:46 +0200, Bjarke Istrup Pedersen wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> 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're right.

We could even make it a dependency based on the gcc version.  Wouldn't
that be neat?  Maybe something like this:

|| ( <=gcc-3.3*
	libstdc++-v3 )

For the humor impaired, this was a joke.  Why is it a joke?  Because
you're missing the non-binary packages that this completely breaks.
Want a cool, small example?  Install gcc 3.3, configure it as your
primary compiler, emerge fluxbox, upgrade to gcc 3.4 and remove all
traces of gcc 3.3 and libstdc++-v3, then try running fluxbox.
Basically, vapier got tired of all of the "my $foo package is broken"
bugs because people didn't realize that anything that linked against the
older gcc would *require* being recompiled to work properly.  The
solution?  Add this library by default.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead/QA Manager
Games - Developer
Gentoo Linux

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]