I think it's worth asking: is there legitimate reason that Sun has
provided its own version of this "core" library, which comes with GCC?
How old does a Linux distro or other OS have to be to not have
libstdc++.so.6 ?
useful_infos@yahoo.com (07-09-15 15:41:00):
> I think it's worth asking: is there legitimate reason that Sun has
> provided its own version of this "core" library, which comes with GCC?
> How old does a Linux distro or other OS have to be to not have
> libstdc++.so.6 ?
If this is true, then portability may be the reason -- especially
Windows portability, because Windows doesn't have such a sophisticated
package management with dependencies and stuff. Windows programs need
to provide by themselves the libraries they depend on. That's why
Windows programs are hugh monolithic beasts compared to their rather
slim Linux counterparts, and that's why Windows distribution involves a
lot of redundancy.
Regards,
Ertugrul Söylemez.
--=20
Security is the one concept, which makes things in your life stay as
they are. Otto is a man, who is afraid of changes in his life; so
naturally he does not employ security.
On Sep 16, 11:04 am, Ertugrul Soeylemez
wrote:
> useful_in...@yahoo.com (07-09-15 15:41:00):
>
> > I think it's worth asking: is there legitimate reason that Sun has
> > provided its own version of this "core" library, which comes with GCC?
> > How old does a Linux distro or other OS have to be to not have
> > libstdc++.so.6 ?
>
> If this is true, then portability may be the reason -- especially
> Windows portability, because Windows doesn't have such a sophisticated
> package management with dependencies and stuff. Windows programs need
> to provide by themselves the libraries they depend on. That's why
> Windows programs are hugh monolithic beasts compared to their rather
> slim Linux counterparts, and that's why Windows distribution involves a
> lot of redundancy.
No, I'm referring the *Linux* version of OpenOffice.
It provides its own libstdc++.so.6.
useful_infos@yahoo.com (07-09-16 15:35:35):
> > > I think it's worth asking: is there legitimate reason that Sun has
> > > provided its own version of this "core" library, which comes with
> > > GCC? How old does a Linux distro or other OS have to be to not
> > > have libstdc++.so.6 ?
> >
> > If this is true, then portability may be the reason -- especially
> > Windows portability, because Windows doesn't have such a
> > sophisticated package management with dependencies and stuff.
> > Windows programs need to provide by themselves the libraries they
> > depend on. That's why Windows programs are hugh monolithic beasts
> > compared to their rather slim Linux counterparts, and that's why
> > Windows distribution involves a lot of redundancy.
>
> No, I'm referring the *Linux* version of OpenOffice. It provides its
> own libstdc++.so.6.
The Linux version is built from the same source. And yes, you're right,
it supplies its own libstdc++ even under Linux. That's pointless, but I
reckon portability is the reason. Probably you can just delete its own
libstdc++.* and let it use the system-wide one. But it may as well be
that they have customized the library.
Regards,
Ertugrul Söylemez.
--=20
Security is the one concept, which makes things in your life stay as
they are. Otto is a man, who is afraid of changes in his life; so
naturally he does not employ security.