=?iso-8859-15?q?Fran=E7ois?= Pons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Raul Dias <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> =?iso-8859-15?q?Fran=E7ois?= Pons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >Raul Dias <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > >> >> >But what do you want exactly, to keep gcc-2.95.3-19cl.src.rpm instead of a newer >> >> >gcc which provides the same libstdc++-libc6.2-2.so.3 ? >> >> >> >> No. A newer gcc would install a different libstdc++ (different soname). >> > >> >This is exactly what we want. >> > >> >> What I am suggesting is a way to let urpmi detect when a c++ application package >> >> will not work before installing them. >> > >> >How can we detect such behaviour ? >> >> 1- check if the install candidate package depends on libstdc++ >> 2- if it does, save the libstdc++ so name, >> 3- Verify each other Requires this package has (probably only lib requirements). >> 4- Check each package that provides what this package require to see if they also >> depends on libstdc++ >> 5- If they do, check if they depend on the same libstdc++ as the install candidate >> package (step 2). >> 6- If they are different abort (it will break, different gccs used) >> 7- If they are the same install the package > Hi,
>Ok, I try to understand what you want, sorry if I am not too cllear. >so if a library requires a different >version of the main application requires on the same library, ...and the main package requires this library,... >the linker will >match them together ? This sounds me a bug in the dynamic linker ? Not in the linker itself, the reason was that the main package and the library were compiled with different (and c++ ABI incompatible) GCCs. >It should use >a separate environment for the library and not use the same as the other one. > >Anybody else confirms this ? > >Gwenole ? Fred ? > >François. > Raul Dias
