On Thu, 2005-02-10 at 11:51 -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
The static RPMs are built on ... Debian unstable. ;) And no, libstdc++ isn't static in it. I wonder if this is going to cause problems for people with gcc3.4-compiled libstdc++? Debian unstable is using gcc 3.3.5.
I'd say at the moment you should absolutely build the static RPMs with gcc 3.3 (which should make it link against libstdc++.so.5), just as you are doing. That will give you broad compatibility with reasonably modern distros. Worst case people will have to install a compatibility library (on FC3 the package is called compat-libstdc++), I think all sane distros provide some similar mechanism (another possibility is to include the soversion of the libraries in the RPM name, so they relevant RPM would be called libstdc++5 or something similar - I think Mandrake might do this?).
In short, I think you should just keep doing what you're doing, especially with the 0-releasetag. Doing anything more "interesting" will just be messy (or fundamentally impossible without building tons of separate packages). I think it's better to sort those issues out in distro-specific packages, which are most easily distributed through the ordinary distribution update mechanisms.
Cheers, and thanks for all the good work, Per