Re: G++ 2 => 3 transition (was Re: GNU C++ 3.0 porting help wanted)
On Mon, 2001-10-15 at 13:50, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 10:09:19AM +0100, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
> > Sean Middleditch <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > Upstream should have changed the version number to reflect the ABI
> > change anyway, shouldn't they?
> This thread started to confuse me starting here.
> The ABI change is caused by a new C++ compiler, not an upstream
> library change. Isn't that right?
> I don't see how you are going to enforce any correlation between
> (upstream) library version number and the compiler with which it
> gets built. At least, not across OSes and distributions, which
> is what Sean was worrying about, above.
Well, most libraries will require porting (I know I had to do a good
deal of changes to get AweMUD compiling on gcc 3.0) so I believe new
versions of many libraries will be released with "gcc 3.0 compatibility"
as a feature.
So, that solves how to upgrade those libraries: when upstream releaes a
new version that compiles on gcc 3.0, make the Debian package compiled
with gcc 3.0. But there is then the issue with all the libraries thta
are already compatible, or will be compatible but won't change version
Wonderful pain in the arse, no?
> by Rocket to the Moon,
> by Airplane to the Rocket,
> by Taxi to the Airport,
> by Frontdoor to the Taxi,
> by throwing back the blanket and laying down the legs ...
> - They Might Be Giants
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org