[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#791230: GCC5 transition and jessie-backports



On 22.09.2015 13:52, Bálint Réczey wrote:
Hi,

2015-08-30 15:46 GMT+02:00 Andreas Metzler <ametzler@bebt.de>:
In gmane.linux.debian.backports.general Daniel Pocock <daniel@pocock.pro> wrote:
[...]
As part of the GCC5 update[1], one of the binary packages built from
openrpt has been renamed from libopenrpt1 to libopenrpt1v5 - see bug
#791230[2] - and that is the version that will be in testing.

If I understand the rules for backports correctly, backports is supposed
to contain the same thing that is in testing.

Given that unstable and testing will use GCC5 and jessie-backports
should be using the GCC 4.9 from jessie, what is supposed to happen?
Will GCC5 be available to compile for backports and should such packages
declare a dependency on the newer libstdc++?  Or is it permitted to make
uploads to jessie-backports without the "v5" suffix, so the package name
in backports won't be the same as the package name in testing?  Or
something else?
[..]

Hello,

afaict the only way to handle this is to undo any -v5 renaming for
backports.

Backporting gcc5 and using it to compile selective backports is not an
option since one cannot mix (all) c++ code built with gcc49 and with
gcc5. (Except for those libraries that do not need a gcc5 transition).

...

Later on it might even become necessary to actually make a reverse gcc
transition (v4) for backports of C++ libraries which had a soname bump
in sid after gcc5 and therefore do not carry a v5 name.

That is all just afaict, and needs confirmation by backports admin
with better C++ foo than me.
It seems reasonable to me. It think we would also need to add
Breaks/Replaces to the unstable/testing versions:

  jessie-bpo: libfooNv4
  testing: libfooN (Breaks: libfooNv4; Replaces: libfooNv4)

I plan back-porting some affected packages but it would be nice if
Matthias and backports admins could agree on the best practice first
and add this to the transition documentation:
https://wiki.debian.org/GCC5

you should differentiate two cases:

 - if just the library package was renamed, you should undo
   the v5 changes.

 - if you had a soname bump, you have to both change the
   jessie-bpo package, and add the breaks/replaces for
   unstable/testing. using the v4 suffix there seems to
   be sensible.

Feel free to add a new section to the wiki page. Note that at least the gcc-5 packaging uses the gcc4-compatible ABI when built for jessie. So even if you decide to backport this one, the above changes are necessary.

Matthias


Reply to: