Re: G++ 2 => 3 transition (was Re: GNU C++ 3.0 porting help wanted)
On Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 10:09:19AM +0100, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
> Sean Middleditch <elanthis@awesomeplay.com> writes:
> > Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> >> Richard Atterer wrote:
>
> >>> I think it will be necessary to have the 2.x packages install
> >>> their files in a directory other than /usr/lib. In this case, that
> >>> directory also needs to be added to the library search path of g++
> >>> 2.x and to /etc/ld.so.conf.
> >>
> >> I think you would have to increment the version number of each
> >> library in this case; otherwise the dynamic linker can't tell the
> >> old library apart from the new one.
> >
> > ANd that would cause conflicts with packages compiled for systems
> > other than Debian, since they might not be expecting the weird
> > version numbers; not to mention a conflict with upstream releases.
>
> 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.
-Steve
--
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
Reply to: