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

Re: New control field proposal which could help on gcc3.2 transition

On Thu, Sep 12, 2002 at 10:42:08AM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> >> Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:
>  > Well, that doesn't really work for things like apt and apache, where
>  > you break backwards compatability and can't just keep the old version
>  > around.  I don't think anyone came up with a way of doing it for the
>  > C++ stuff, either.
>  It seemed to me that we had reached an agreement on the namespace
>  solution (put libraries linked using the new G++ ABI in, say,
>  /usr/lib/g++-3.2/ and modify the C++ front-end to pass the appropiate
>  flags to the linker).  At least everyone seemed to be saying "yes, that
>  sounds ok" and noone raised major objections.  We did put the idea of
>  "let's make the dynamic linker second-guess us" aside pretty fast --
>  some people kept musing on that for a while but AFAIR it was going
>  nowhere.

 It is not my intention to get in the way of the g++3.2 transition, this
 proposal has been written way before g++3.2 came around. My motivation
 is mainly that woody is out and it is the time for such proposals.

 So, if the transition is already planned (sorry, I am not as up to date
 as I would like) just ignore my proposal with regards to it and do as
 Anyway I still think it could be usefull not only for libraries, but
 for package splits or any other changes which may break other packages.

 Have a nice day


--- Manuel Estrada Sainz <ranty@debian.org>
------------------------ <manuel.estrada@hispalinux.es> -------------------
Let us have the serenity to accept the things we cannot change, courage to
change the things we can, and wisdom to know the difference.

Reply to: