Re: FWD: C++ library packaging
Joey Hess writes:
> ----- Forwarded message from Nathan Myers <firstname.lastname@example.org> -----
> From: Nathan Myers <email@example.com>
> Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 22:35:20 +0000
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: C++ library packaging
> X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests= version=2.20
> Hi Joey,
> I'm (re-)packaging some C++ libraries.
> Unfortunately the original packager failed to incorporate
> dependence on the compiler/libstdc++ version in the name, so
> that equal versions of the library, but built with different
> compiler versions, cannot coexist.
> This is a general problem with C++ libraries (getting less so
> as the compiler and library maintainers slouch toward a fixed
> ABI), but is not mentioned in the policy manual. I'm guessing
> we should incorporate the gcc-version in the package name,
> like libxerces-gcc3.1_1.7.0-1.deb. The .so files, I suppose,
> would have to look like lib/libxerces-gcc3.1.so.1.7.0.
shouldn't this be the libstdc++ ABI version and the G++ interface
> I don't know how many C++ library packages there are in Debian
> now, but they all need this treatment.
> Of more fundamental concern, the name for libstdc++ will have
> to change, because libstdc++ from gcc-3.1 is not upward-binary-
> compatible with the one from 3.0.x, so (IIUC) we can't have a
the shared object name already is different. why change the "basename"
> Fortunately, they have finally committed to
> binary compatibility for all gcc-3.1.x, but will soon release an
> incompatible gcc-3.2. (Probably all gcc-4.x.x will be at least
> I've been out of the loop for some time. Has there been any
> discussion of this?
Jeff Bailey <email@example.com> did some preparations for such an
upgrade. Basically if Debian should change the sonames of the
libstdc++ dependent packages or should do the transition in place.
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com