Re: gcc 3.2 transition in unstable
Scott James Remnant writes:
>Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>> Ryan Murray <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>>> o Add a Conflict with the non-`c102' version of the
>> If I am reading this right you are planning to break backwards
>> compatibility, and prevent any locally compiled programs linked
>> against pre-3.2 libraries from working after the new packages are
> No, g++ 3.2 has broken backwards compatibility, all the transition is
> trying to do is deal with that.
The kind of backwards compatibility GCC has broken is the ability to
link old and new compiled code. This happens all the time, but is not
what I am talking about.
The kind of backwards compatibility that the transition plan appears
to break is the ability to have old libraries and new libraries on the
same system at all.
This is a problem for anyone who has linked anything against the old
libraries; they must recompile and relink (which might require
modifying the code, since the compiler and libraries have changed).
In previous similar transitions, Debian has avoided breaking such
programs. Not this time, apparently. It is this that I think should
either be fixed or more heavily emphasized.