On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 12:56:17PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote: > On Mon, 2003-03-10 at 23:42, Martin Godisch wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 19:27:56 +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote: > > > > > > If nobody is working on sdl, I may NMU it so that I can perform the c102 > > > > transition for libsmpeg. > > > > > > Does SDL need a transition for the C++ ABI ? AFAIK it is pure C code and > > > shouldn't need it. > > > > What about libsdl-mixer1.2? > I was about to ask some advice about it. SDL_mixer doesn't contain any > C++ code, but it links to smpeg which is C++. For a reason I don't > understand, libtool adds an explicit -lstdc++ at link time, and I don't > see why it would be necessary. The case is similar to that of GLU, as > SDL_mixer only uses C exports of smpeg functions, and is pure C. > What I don't know is what happens when a C++ program uses SDL_mixer - > but it shouldn't be a problem, as there are no C++ symbols involved. > So there are three possibilities : > 1) Let everything as is and hope it works, > 2) make a c102 transition for SDL_mixer, > Comments welcome. Fortunately, C++ symbol names tend not to collide across ABIs because of name mangling (one of the main reasons we've *had* an ABI change). If libsdl-mixer1.2 links against C++, I think the worst case is that a C++-using app might load two versions of libstdc++ at the same time. If SDL_mixer itself doesn't export any C++ symbols, it should be fine to just recompile without changing the package name, I think. (If more is needed, we'll surely find out before the release and can rename the package if necessary.) > 3) do the necessary so that SDL_mixer doesn't link unnecessary with > libsdtc++ anymore (is that a libtool bug ?). And how. I'm considering ripping the .la files out of all of my packages because of this; see #180496. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
pgpF2lO30DEhi.pgp
Description: PGP signature