Re: New control field proposal which could help on gcc3.2 transition
On Thu, Sep 12, 2002 at 02:10:08AM +0200, Manuel Estrada Sainz wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I wrote the following proposal a while back, but decided that since it
> was post-woody, I would wait. But woody is out and I think that it
> could also be usefull for the gcc3.2 transition.
If a package changes it's backward compatibility, it should change it's
soname and thus it's package name, IMO.
Allowing packages compiled against libfoo 1.1.1 to break when libfoo
1.2.1 releases, is just plain broken.
Adding support in dpkg to overcome the brokeness, and to make it easier
to create such situations, is even more broken.
Now, if libfoo 1.1.1 compiled packages break because libfoo 1.1.2 is
compiled with gcc-3.2 (which I assume only happens with c++, not just
C...), then we need a more specific mechanism.
The problem with your solution is that no package knows when it is
changing over to gcc-3.2. This occurs on a per arch basis, and not
always the same changes. For example, hppa is already at gcc-3.0, and
ia64 has been using a gcc-2.96 variant (gnu-pro or something).
Packages cannot decide when they need to do this. So we need a different
solution to your example.
--
Debian - http://www.debian.org/
Linux 1394 - http://www.linux1394.org/
Subversion - http://subversion.tigris.org/
Deqo - http://www.deqo.com/
Reply to: