On Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 11:09:34AM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 12:55:15AM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Sun, 18 Feb 2001, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > Ahh. And any old support isn't possible since it'd have to be built
> > > against glibc2.1, which means glibc2.1 would have to be available for
> > > woody, which it won't be since glibc2.2 is.
> > Er, so? We don't guarentee we can build everything in woody with stuff in
> > woody in an automated fashion.
> Things can be rebuilt without libstdc++2.10, since libstdc++2.10-dev
> pulls in libstdc++2.10-glibc2.2. There is no need for extra source.
There's over 1000 packages that'll need to be rebuilt if we don't
provide updated libraries, and it'll also make it awkward for people
who've built their own C++ binaries on Debian systems to port them to
new woody installs.
> > We go through this every release, and we always do this. We *MUST* ship
> > the usual set of libsdtdc++'s because commercial apps, and apps from other
> > distributions use them, not to mention us :P
> Do you know how much of a pain in the ass it is to keep the old
> libstdc++ around for compilation?
It means trimming the gcc/egcs source down (or at least disabling bits),
and building in a potato chroot rather than using the usual autobuilding
stuff.
Honestly, I'm a lot more worried about toolchain issues like sparc woody
being unable to build ncurses.
At any rate, I remember during the potato freeze that you (Ben) had
a script for automagically rebuilding binaries (and appropriately
incrementing the Debian revision by -0.0.1). Is this still functional,
and if so, can it easily be ported to the other autobuilders so relinking
against the new libstdc++ doesn't require a few hundred serious bugs to
be filed, and a few hundred maintainers to do local rebuilds?
Ideally we should be doing both of these things: supporting old C++ binaries
with compatibility libraries (however much of a pain in the ass they are),
and linking all our binaries against the latest libs.
Is anyone able to build the compatibility libraries?
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``_Any_ increase in interface difficulty, in exchange for a benefit you
do not understand, cannot perceive, or don't care about, is too much.''
-- John S. Novak, III (The Humblest Man on the Net)
Attachment:
pgpwH2oOZO4kq.pgp
Description: PGP signature