How to remove libstdc++5?

user · 2006-05-30 01:05:19

Hi, i think my arch aren't using the stock one from arch,
because i install new gcc-4.2(c,c++,treelang) over default one.

> sudo pacman -R libstdc++5
error: could not find libstdc++5 in database
> sudo pacman -Rkd libstdc++5
error: could not find libstdc++5 in database
> sudo pacman -R libstdc++
error: could not find libstdc++ in database
> sudo pacman -Ss libstdc++
testing/libstdc++5 3.3.6-1
GNU Standard C++ library version 3

> ldd /usr/lib/libstdc++.so.6
linux-gate.so.1 => (0xffffe000)
libm.so.6 => /lib/libm.so.6 (0xb7ea9000)
libgcc_s.so.1 => /usr/lib/libgcc_s.so.1 (0xb7e9e000)
libc.so.6 => /lib/libc.so.6 (0xb7d81000)
/lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0x80000000)
> ls -l /usr/lib/libgcc_s.so.1
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 246179 2006-05-29 20:02 /usr/lib/libgcc_s.so.1

> sudo pacman -Suy
:: Synchronizing package databases...
:: testing is up to date
:: current is up to date
:: extra is up to date
:: community is up to date
Targets: libstdc++5-3.3.6-1 codecs-20060501-1 curl-7.15.1-2 cvs-1.11.21-2
cyrus-sasl-2.1.21-3 gcc-4.1.1-3 libtasn1-0.3.4-1 gnutls-1.4.0-1
heimdal-0.7.2-2 neon-0.25.5-2 openldap-2.3.21-2 perl-5.8.8-3
python-2.4.3-2 smbclient-3.0.22A-2 subversion-1.3.1-3 udev-093-1
wget-1.10.2-2
Total Package Size: 80.1 MB
Proceed with upgrade? [Y/n] n

PS: updated each one except gcc libstdc++5 codecs

brain0 · 2006-05-30 09:11:32

With gcc 4.0.X and earlier, the lib was in the gcc package. With gcc 4.1, it moved to a separate package. As I have read the other thread about your gcc "problem", I'll give you a link that you should really read: http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/ABS

phrakture · 2006-05-30 09:24:09

I'm not really sure what you're looking for. Installing libstdc++5 will, oddly enough, install libstdc++.so.5

Your post shows libstdc++.so.6. libstdc++5 is for compatibility for old applications.

Also, if you're installing newer version of software which arch provides packages for already, you may want to just use ABS, as it will prevent pacman from doing funky things when upgrading (this was suggested in another thread - and you made it a point to say "I did it all myself" - that is not a good thing)

user · 2006-05-31 02:24:15

phrakture wrote:

Your post shows libstdc++.so.6. libstdc++5 is for compatibility for old applications.

No. There is no libstdc++5 on my arch.

 > ls -l /usr/lib/libstdc++.*
-rw-r--r--  1 root root 8776224 2006-05-29 20:02 /usr/lib/libstdc++.a
-rwxr-xr-x  1 root root    1061 2006-05-29 20:02 /usr/lib/libstdc++.la
lrwxrwxrwx  1 root root      18 2006-05-29 20:02 /usr/lib/libstdc++.so -> libstdc++.so.6.0.9
lrwxrwxrwx  1 root root      18 2006-05-29 20:02 /usr/lib/libstdc++.so.6 -> libstdc++.so.6.0.9
-rwxr-xr-x  1 root root 1132834 2006-05-26 04:31 /usr/lib/libstdc++.so.6.0.8
-rwxr-xr-x  1 root root 4878191 2006-05-29 20:02 /usr/lib/libstdc++.so.6.0.9
 >

user · 2006-05-31 03:23:51

brain0 wrote:

As I have read the other thread about your gcc "problem", I'll give you a link that you should really read: http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/ABS

Thanks but no thanks
sudo pacman -Rkd (remove) && sudo pacman -Sd (upgrade), all the way.

iphitus · 2006-05-31 08:10:07

user wrote:

brain0 wrote:
As I have read the other thread about your gcc "problem", I'll give you a link that you should really read: http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/ABS
Thanks but no thanks
sudo pacman -Rkd (remove) && sudo pacman -Sd (upgrade), all the way.

icky. use what you like, and work however you want to, but please dont go advertising it around the place. Use what's comfortable, but such practices as you use, are best not encouraged for newbies, especially with such critical packages as glibc. Not only is it something newbies shouldnt need to see, but no doubt other users cringe at your undermining of the package system. I do all sorts of things on my system that are very discouraged - simply for convenience sake, but I dont go advertising them.

James

user · 2006-05-31 08:23:37

Alright. i just can't bare it(libstdc++5). that's all.

PS: oh wait well that's not all,
1. a little hype of my arch
2. long time habit, i don't trust automatic thing until i understand it.
3. loong time ego..

iphitus · 2006-05-31 11:40:25

user wrote:

Alright. i just can't bare it(libstdc++5). that's all.
PS: oh wait well that's not all,
1. a little hype of my arch
2. long time habit, i don't trust automatic thing until i understand it.
3. loong time ego..

arch's always had it included within another package. now it's been seperated out, so if you dont want it, dont install it, and the programs that use the old version won't work. If you don't understand this, then you shouldnt be screwing around with this stuff.

Busting glibc is a sure fire way of busting your install, or at least requiring you to boot a liveCD to reinstall it.

if you do want it, and in the same package, you're splitting hairs, but you can always just edit the PKGBUILDs. It's a much more arch-like way of going about solving the issue, and will prevent... stupid problems like those in this thread.

may I also ask... what benefit have you found by actually using these more recent releases? It seems pure ricing to me... i mean, gcc4.2 isnt even released, it's just alpha snapshots. The compiler is one thing I wouldnt want to use an unstable version for.

James

user · 2006-05-31 12:05:25

new features, and gain the performance compare to default stock arch.
(the scope is not tied to glibc only, but whole system. for example, linux kernel compile, newer system utilities etc)

PS: IMHO. Ironically, it's screw-rate similar(or less) with the stock.
PPS: and i didn't talk about glibc in this threads. i am well using glibc-2.4-2 from the testing. it works fine with my gcc(version 4.2.0 20060527 (experimental)),

moreover this gcc-4.2 wasn't from my old arch(0.7.1 using it right now), it "comes" from my new arch hdd(0.7.2/200GB).
and it compile BEa3 and Linux arch 2.6.17-rc5-git5 without any problem.

JGC · 2006-05-31 13:44:08

gcc speedups are just in your head. I've been compiling all the things that went into testing with gcc 4.1.1. Compared to gcc 4.0, there's not a single noticable speedup. For a whole KDE rebuild for example, the only gain you get is over 75-100MB of packages, a 0.6MB shrink in package size.

A new compiler won't speed up your system, optimizations won't do either. The thing that does matter is code.

user · 2006-05-31 14:59:03

agreed

PS: to get working gcc-4.2(20060527) version, you need 2 patches.

PPS: i heard that Mr. Linus prefer gcc-2.9.x over gcc-3.x~4.x, is it true?

PPPS: but hey, i didn't talk about gcc-speed-up thing my previous post. reread it.

Cerebral · 2006-05-31 15:38:08

iphitus wrote:

may I also ask... what benefit have you found by actually using these more recent releases?

user wrote:

new features, and gain the performance compare to default stock arch.

(emphasis mine)

user wrote:

but hey, i didn't talk about gcc-speed-up thing my previous post. reread it.

If you don't mean a speed-up, then what do you mean by "gain performance"?

phrakture · 2006-05-31 16:57:46

Hay guys wuts goin on in this thread?

This thread is confusing. If you want to rebuild arch packages... rebuild by using ABS. It's simple and requires very little effort.
It's my personal policy not to support things like this. It's actually more work to try to maintain non-managed installs in a managed system... so if you don't want to use pacman for this stuff, it's best not to use pacman at all....

Gullible Jones · 2006-05-31 19:46:48

If you're talking about performance benefits those should come in GCC 4.1.x...

JGC · 2006-05-31 20:43:11

Gullible Jones wrote:

If you're talking about performance benefits those should come in GCC 4.1.x...

Should... would you notice the difference in wallclock seconds? I won't, neither do you and neither will that guy with a P2 300 do.

The only improvement I've seen with gcc 4.1 is powerdns-recursor, which isn't very weird: powerdns-recursor is optimized to make use of all features of GCC 4.1.

Simply compiling your whole system with GCC 4.1 won't make it faster. Patching applications to make use of features in gcc 4.1 will make it faster, but until nobody does that, no speed improvements will get noticed at all. As I said, the only program I've seen doing special optimization is powerdns-recursor, because the author of that software is actually helping in compiler development and knows what he should do to gain speedups.

phrakture · 2006-05-31 21:14:09

JGC wrote:

Patching applications to make use of features in gcc 4.1 will make it faster

And make the apps wonderfully compiler specific! Hooray!

user · 2006-05-31 21:31:03

Cerebral wrote:

iphitus wrote:
may I also ask... what benefit have you found by actually using these more recent releases?
user wrote:
new features, and gain the performance compare to default stock arch.
(emphasis mine)
user wrote:
but hey, i didn't talk about gcc-speed-up thing my previous post. reread it.
If you don't mean a speed-up, then what do you mean by "gain performance"?

my answer is

new features, and gain the performance compare to default stock arch.
(the scope is not tied to glibc only, but whole system. for example, linux kernel compile, newer system utilities etc)

PS: anyway, still i want to remove the libstdc++5!!!

user · 2006-05-31 21:49:58

phrakture wrote:

1>If you want to rebuild arch packages... rebuild by using ABS. It's simple and requires very little effort.
2>It's my personal policy not to support things like this. It's actually more work to try to maintain non-managed installs in a managed system... so if you don't want to use pacman for this stuff, it's best not to use pacman at all....

1>abs != (packages reading and understand it and patch(tweak) it)

2>i use 1/2 of full pacman usage. to give all control power to arch make me Jack. have no chance to study inner flow.

neotuli · 2006-05-31 22:25:34

user wrote:

1>abs != (packages reading and understand it and patch(tweak) it)
2>i use 1/2 of full pacman usage. to give all control power to arch make me Jack. have no chance to study inner flow.

1> but it does = doing something for yourself and keeping things in the package manager, making things easier all around

2> huh? inner who? By the sounds of it, you run a half and half managed system. Well, don't come crying here when your libs get FUBARed, it's your own damned fault for not keeping things managed.

JGC · 2006-05-31 22:52:40

I wouldn't know why you still want to remove libstdc++5. There's no optimization in the whole world available to make it better than the compatibility lib that it provides. There's no newer version of it, there's no better optimized version of it, nothing.

For gcc 4.2.x prereleases: go ahead and break your system with it, but it doesn't provide libstdc++.so.5. A stupid symlink to libstdc++.so.6 won't help you out to keep applicatons compiled against gcc 3.2 and 3.3 working.

user · 2006-05-31 23:05:35

neotuli wrote:

2> huh? inner who? By the sounds of it, you run a half and half managed system. Well, don't come crying here when your libs get FUBARed, it's your own damned fault for not keeping things managed.

Trust me, there is no such a scare thing in linux.

PS: i.e. all is too easy in linux. no panic.

user · 2006-05-31 23:09:24

JGC wrote:

1>I wouldn't know why you still want to remove libstdc++5. There's no optimization in the whole world available to make it better than the compatibility lib that it provides. There's no newer version of it, there's no better optimized version of it, nothing.
2>For gcc 4.2.x prereleases: go ahead and break your system with it,
3>but it doesn't provide libstdc++.so.5. A stupid symlink to libstdc++.so.6 won't help you out to keep applicatons compiled against gcc 3.2 and 3.3 working.

1>for my arch, this isn't about optimization, this about (neat)completeness.

2>I did it, i send this message using BEa3 compiled by gcc-4.2/glibc-2.4

3>i dont need libstdc++.so.5 at all.

JGC · 2006-06-01 06:17:09

user wrote:

1>for my arch, this isn't about optimization, this about (neat)completeness.
2>I did it, i send this message using BEa3 compiled by gcc-4.2/glibc-2.4
3>i dont need libstdc++.so.5 at all.

So then just delete it and don't use any software that depends on it. We don't put in those dependencies for nothing, these libraries are needed for that software to function.

About gcc 4.2 not breaking your system: you'll find out, I've seen Fedora recompiling their whole distro twice in a week because of a compiler bug.

user · 2006-06-01 06:35:25

JGC wrote:

1>So then just delete it
2>About gcc 4.2 not breaking your system: you'll find out, I've seen Fedora recompiling their whole distro twice in a week because of a compiler bug.

1>How to delete it? libstdc++5 doesn't exist but seems only in pacman db.

2>my gcc-4.2(20060527) was bootstrap successfully, it patched about regression test. it compiled firefox 2.0a3(BE) and latest linux kernel 2.6.17-rc5-gitX, no problem yet. saw it's behavior, well maybe this set is ok.

iphitus · 2006-06-01 06:39:17

user wrote:

2>I did it, i send this message using BEa3 compiled by gcc-4.2/glibc-2.4

keep ricing it up

3>i dont need libstdc++.so.5 at all.

then pacman -Rc libstdc++5!!

If it wants to remove other applications, it's because those applications NEED it, and will not function without it.

James

Arch Linux

#1 2006-05-30 01:05:19

How to remove libstdc++5?

#2 2006-05-30 09:11:32

Re: How to remove libstdc++5?

#3 2006-05-30 09:24:09

Re: How to remove libstdc++5?

#4 2006-05-31 02:24:15

Re: How to remove libstdc++5?

#5 2006-05-31 03:23:51

Re: How to remove libstdc++5?

#6 2006-05-31 08:10:07

Re: How to remove libstdc++5?

#7 2006-05-31 08:23:37

Re: How to remove libstdc++5?

#8 2006-05-31 11:40:25

Re: How to remove libstdc++5?

#9 2006-05-31 12:05:25

Re: How to remove libstdc++5?

#10 2006-05-31 13:44:08

Re: How to remove libstdc++5?

#11 2006-05-31 14:59:03

Re: How to remove libstdc++5?

#12 2006-05-31 15:38:08

Re: How to remove libstdc++5?

#13 2006-05-31 16:57:46

Re: How to remove libstdc++5?

#14 2006-05-31 19:46:48

Re: How to remove libstdc++5?

#15 2006-05-31 20:43:11

Re: How to remove libstdc++5?

#16 2006-05-31 21:14:09

Re: How to remove libstdc++5?

#17 2006-05-31 21:31:03

Re: How to remove libstdc++5?

#18 2006-05-31 21:49:58

Re: How to remove libstdc++5?

#19 2006-05-31 22:25:34

Re: How to remove libstdc++5?

#20 2006-05-31 22:52:40

Re: How to remove libstdc++5?

#21 2006-05-31 23:05:35

Re: How to remove libstdc++5?

#22 2006-05-31 23:09:24

Re: How to remove libstdc++5?

#23 2006-06-01 06:17:09

Re: How to remove libstdc++5?

#24 2006-06-01 06:35:25

Re: How to remove libstdc++5?

#25 2006-06-01 06:39:17

Re: How to remove libstdc++5?

Board footer