Subject: Re: gcc-toolchain is missing libstdc++.so

From: John Kehayias <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 May 2023 21:50:00 +0000

Hi all,

> I have similar use cases of FHS containers to run binaries (primarily
> games). I recently ran into the issue of gcc:lib going away and no
> output from a visible package providing libstdc++. My current
> workaround was to implement a replacement for specifications->manifest
> that could handle packages and '(package "output") pairs in addition
> to strings, so that I could include `(,(@@ (gnu packages gcc) gcc)
> "lib") in place of "gcc:lib". Internally it resolves package strings
> to packages with specification->package, then passes the package and
> optional output specifier to package->manifest-entry. But I digress a
> little...

Nice little hack Kaelyn, would you mind sharing somewhere? I wonder if
this should be something we should have more easily anyway.

On Thu, May 04, 2023 at 12:14 PM, Katherine Cox-Buday wrote:

> On 5/4/23 11:33 AM, Kaelyn wrote:
>
>> Regarding solutions, I would prefer to have libstdc++ in it's own
>> package or output rather than bundled into gcc-toolchain:out; it
>> feels messy and against the grain of isolating programs in
>> containers if I have to make the gcc and g++ compilers available in
>> the container in order to run a program that needs libstdc++.
>
> +1. I recently ran into this as well and went looking for it.
>
> I think a good reason to give libstdc++ its own output is that this
> question continually gets asked.

That sounds reasonable to me as well. I would think the make-libstdc++
procedure would work for this, but as I detailed in my other message,
I'm not sure why it seems to be missing symbols. We would have just
what we need there and could just expose some public package versions
through that or leave it similar to how it is and document (so it is
more of an advanced or edge case scenario and not have more people
going that way when what they really want is the actual gcc-toolchain
package).

John