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

Re: How to transition to G++ 3.2 wthout any breakage



On Sun, Aug 18, 2002 at 06:09:18PM +0200, Luca Barbieri wrote:

> > > Of course it would be better to avoid having to do things like this but
> > > unfortunately there is simply no other solution that doesn't break
> > > existing G++ v2 packages.

> > Of course there is.  You upload new versions of the gcc 2.95 packages,
> > and you make the new gcc 3.2 packages conflict with the old ones.
> > Nothing is broken in that case.

> False.
> Users will no longer get updated version of any C++ package unless they
> manually remove/recompile any package depending on the old libraries
> which is not yet recompiled or is not in Debian.

Huh?

We have libfoo++3 2.1.0-5 in the archive currently.  We recompile the
library against gcc 3.2, changing the name to libfoo++3c and conflicting
with libfoo++3 <= 2.1.0-5.  We then add a compatibility package,
libfoo++3 2.1.0-6, which puts its libs in the new location for such
things, and depends on whatever approved linker glue will be used for
identifying ABIs.

If a user upgrades libfoo++3, the library moves to the new directory, and
the linker glue is installed, so no packages break.

If a user installs libfoo++3c or a package that has been recompiled
against it, it forces libfoo++3 to also be upgraded to the version that
stows the library in the new canonical location.

What breaks?

If you were planning to NOT provide backwards-compatible libraries and
linker glue, then your suggestion to modify dpkg is more broken than I
thought.

> Actually I think that those packages don't require any external C++
> library so they may still work, but what if they required one? What
> would a KDE user do? Go back to the obsolete 2.2? Be no longer able to
> get upgraded Debian packages, that might even contain security fixes?
> Recompile packages on its own?

> Would those alternatives be better than an ugly fix limited to dpkg?

Yes, because by itself, the ugly fix in dpkg wouldn't *fix* anything,
and it *would* make it more difficult to fix other bugs.

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: pgpV7yRhPD7ek.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: