Re: GCC 3.2 transition
Matthew Wilcox <willy@debian.org> writes:
> This is a proposal. You will be notified when this is a real plan
I think Jeff Bailey's plan is entirely different, and I like his plan
more. Here are the differences.
> * If you maintain a library written in C++, add a `c' to the end of
> the name of your .deb, eg libdb4.0++.deb -> libdb4.0++c.deb. This
> is similar in spirit to the glibc transition adding `g' to the end
> of libraries.
In Jeff's plan: do nothing.
> At some point in the future, we will change gcc-defaults to make
> gcc-3.2 the default on all architectures. At that time, you should
> remove the setting of CXX and the explicit dependency on g++-3.2. You
> should not rename your package to remove the `c' suffix until upstream
> change their soname.
In Jeff's plan: All C++ packages will be uploaded via NMUs. The
package maintainer can upload their packages afterwards if they have
to make other corrections.
> Why don't we just change the sonames?
Because it is easiest to have just two binary-incompatible
libraries. They can't coexist, and they don't need to, most of the
time. When they do, the old versions can be put in a separate
directory.
> Why don't we put the libs in a different directory?
>
> Basically, it's too complex. For the glibc transition, we could do
> this because they used different dynamic linkers.
For C++, we can do this because we have the source of nearly all
packages, and can recompile them. There won't be much C++ libraries
that are needed by packages for which we don't have the source to.
Regards,
Martin
Reply to: