Re: gcc 3.2 transition in unstable
Eduardo Pérez Ureta <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> 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)?
Afaict the choices are different:
* use the proposal, breaking any _locally_ compiled c++ program which
links against other libraries than libstdc++ or qt2.
* change sonames. breaking compatibility mit non debian but LSB
compatible (commercial) programs.
There will be no "breakage with Debian itself" at least not in the
cu andreas, wondering why people only start commenting on
the transition plan the day it is executed and not the
(many) months it was for public review. (I am no DD.)