Re: gcc 3.2 transition in unstable
On 2003-01-06 15:46:41 -0200, Gustavo Noronha Silva wrote:
> Em Mon, 6 Jan 2003 16:56:58 +0000, Eduardo Pérez Ureta <eperez@it.uc3m.es>
> escreveu:
> > 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?
>
> I'm not a soname expert, but if we change sonames now, maybe we'll end
> up being incompatible for more time we wished to be....
>
> It seems to me that this 'breakage' would only be fixed when upstream
> would change the soname, and that does not happen everyday. *But* this
> event could even be a problem, too, because our 'incompatible soname
> just for transition' may be the same as the 'new one' from upstream...
> so the incompatibility would have to be maintained longer...
>
> Simply sucks. Am I wrong?
It shouldn't.
If upstream changed sonames in every API/ABI change.
And Debian changed sonames in the gcc-3.2 transition there shouldn't be
any problem.
Example:
libmycpplibrary0 contains libmycpplibrary0.so.0
libmycpplibrary1 contains libmycpplibrary1.so.0
libmycpplibrary0c102 contains libmycpplibrary0c102.so.0
libmycpplibrary1c102 contains libmycpplibrary1c102.so.0
We would have one package for gcc-2.95 and other one for gcc-3.2 but
once all programs start to be compiled with the gcc-3.2 libraries the
gcc-2.95 libraries can be purged out of Debian.
Reply to: