Excerpts from Maciej (Matchek) Bliziński's message of Sun Feb 26 09:18:12 -0500 2012:
Hi Maciej, > If we build any C++ libraries, we need to consider which compiler we > build them with. For example, if we want to build something that > depends on Boost, and we want (or need) to build it with GCC, we > have to build Boost with GCC as well. But Studio and GCC produce > incompatible libraries because of different name mangling schemes. > > Therefore, I suggest that we designate a separate directory for GCC > C++ libraries. To keep things simple, --prefix=/opt/csw/gcc, and > --libdir=/opt/csw/gcc/lib. Package names would be CSWlibfoo0-gcc > and libfoo0_gcc. The idea is good and we should definitely accommodate this nicely. I don't like /opt/csw/gcc, but I haven't got a better name that doesn't also suffer from: 1. Top level directory proliferation. 2. Confusion with /opt/csw/gcc[34]. If nobody has a better path name, I'd be inclined to go with /opt/csw/gcc as suggested. > An alternative would be to patch sonames. Patching the sonames feels much more invasive and would be harder (more work per package) to accommodate. Thanks -Ben -- Ben Walton Systems Programmer - CHASS University of Toronto C:416.407.5610 | W:416.978.4302 _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers .:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.
