Re: gcc 3.2 transition in unstable
Richard Kettlewell wrote:
> 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.
I'm also opposed to this form of transition like other Debian developers.
I would like to see all the sonames changed.
The only question that Debian users should be asked is:
Do we want breakage with programs of other distributions as of the
sonames change (with a short transition time and no breakage in Debian),
or do we want breakage with Debian itself as of the sonames are maintained
(with a long transition time and lots of breakage in Debian)?
But, I will support the transition if the Debian project officially states
that this is the last API/ABI transition without changing the sonames.
And the next other API/ABI change in KDE or other C++ program or even C
program MUST change the sonames even if other distributions don't change the
sonames when changing the API/ABI.
Will you support this proposal?