On Mon, Dec 16, 2002 at 08:56:43PM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote: > > On the FAQ: > > Why don't we put the libs in a different directory? > > Basically, it's too complex. For the glibc transition, we could do > this because they used different dynamic linkers. For this > transition, there is also little to gain in having full backwards > compatibility to the old ABI. The only gain is that third party > binary only applications that dynamically link to C++ using-libs > (other than the stdc++ library itself) continue to work. The only > common case that comes to mind for this is libqt2 and kdelibs3. Both > of these packages are old, so to keep binary compatibility with > previous versions of our distribution (and some other distributions) > is easy. We continue to build libqt2 and all dependant packages with > g++-2.95. Anything using libqt3, will build with the new ABI, along > with other C++ libraries. > > > > > I've thought having a directory for doing LD_LIBRARY_PATH might help people > keep compatibility > with other dists or legacy applications, > > thoughts?
That's reasonable, I suppose. It would have to be for the oldlibs version; then we could do it after we're into the transition. The new versions should go in the normal locations IMO. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer