> I tried building a distribution set with today's sources.  base.tgz
> failed because it couldn't find usr/lib/libstdc++.so.1.0 (and no
> wonder, since i386 now builds libstdc++.so.2.0 -- and both are listed
> in distrib/sets/lists/base/md.i386); comp.tgz failed because it
> couldn't find usr/include/i386/linux_machdep.h.
>
> Or did my build fail in a mysterious way?  Should libstdc++.so.1.0
> have been built in addition to 2.0?  And where (if anywhere) should
> linux_machdep.h be?  There is an empty directory in usr/include/compat=

> which I would have thought should contain things like that.

I think this is leftovers from when we used gcc as the compiler.

The build of the sets probably didn't fail, but yes, you would
get error messages for each of the missing files.

Yes, it's probably time to remove libstdc++.so.1.0 now from the
install sets files -- especially if it's in a MD set file, since
those platforms which have gone to egcs are most likely not going to
revert to gcc by now.

- H=E5vard