Re: a bug the rpm spec file or in the makefile ?

[Farkas Levente <lfarkas at mindmaker dot hu>]

On Fri, 30 Jun 2000, Martin v. Loewis wrote:
> > can't people just use the nightly source snapshots and configure with 
> > --enable-libstdcxx-v3?
> 
> Maybe I lost track about what the problem is, but: If you have a rpm
> spec file, and now start configuring with --enable-libstdcxx-v3, the
> resulting binary RPM could be easily incorrect. You have to tell the
> spec file what files go into binary distribution. Without having
> looked at the spec file in question, my guess is that it might not
> pick up the libstdc++-v3 header file, as they live in a different
> directory.

it'll contain, since it includes
/usr/local/include/g+*
/usr/local/lib/libstdc++-3-libc*-%{STDC_VERSION}.a
/usr/local/lib/libstdc++-3-libc*-%{STDC_VERSION}.so
/usr/local/lib/libstdc++-libc*.a.3
/usr/local/lib/libstdc++-libc*.so.3
(anyway for /usr/local a define would be useful:-)
but I don't know what is the result of --enable-libstdcxx-v3 ?
does it cause to install just v3 (and not v2) ? since in that
case there won't be any problem (just gcc's not compile (nor the latest
snapshot, neither the tgz from the srpm as wrote in another mail:-(()
with the header files (I'm not so sure about the libs since I don't know
what is the versioning rule here libstdc++-3 or libstdc++-v3 and 
libstdc++-libc*.so.3 or (something crazy) libstdc++-libc*.so.v3.
anyway the only problem that can occur that both version will be
installed.

 -- Levente
 "The only thing worse than not knowing the truth is
  ruining the bliss of ignorance."