C++ compatibility package dropped

[Mike Hearn]

On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 19:47:53 -0400, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> about we not make over-reaching claims about what other operating
> systems do about backwards compatibility. If ALL application writers in
> the universe were linking statically to libsdc++ like Apple demanded
> before the release 10.3.9  would there be much to talk about in this
> thread?

Nope, probably not, and bundling private libstdc++.so versions is likely
to be the route we'll take. That's a shame because it's 3mb of overhead
most apps don't want, but if there's no other way then so be it.

> Holding the downstream distributor responsible for the lack of stability
> is a bit.. short-sighted.

Well, the whole point of soname versioning and renaming the library when
it changes its exported interface is so they can be parallel installed. I
don't think it's too much to ask that it's installed by default which is
definitely a downstream decision.

thanks -mike