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 <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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
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 <email@example.com>
------------------------ <firstname.lastname@example.org> -------------------
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.