bdubbs at swbell.net
Sun Apr 24 23:19:57 PDT 2005
> On Mon, Apr 25, 2005 at 12:19:28AM -0500, Randy McMurchy wrote:
>>I'm not sure that because there may be some binary version of some
>>package out there that needs libstdc++.so.5 is a compelling reason.
> One thing to keep in mind is if the
> gcc section is done, there isn't any extra maintenance at this point to
> keep it.
I tend to agree with this comment. We might as well keep it around for
a while--at least a few months--before we pull it out.
More information about the blfs-dev