On Mon, May 26, 2003 at 10:22:41PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: > Branden Robinson writes: > > Questions for debian-{x,devel}: > > > > 1) Should libstdc++-dev dependencies be made "artificially" strict in > > packages destined for sid so that it's harder for packages built > > against, say, libstdc++3 to accidentally sneak in and start regressing > > the C++ ABI transition progress? > > A dependency on the libstdc++-dev package is not (yet) needed, as > every new major version of gcc comes with a new libstdc++XXX-dev > package. Maybe it's better to depend on g++ (>= 3:3.3-1) or a specific > g++ version if yoou need it. I'll file a report on build-essential to > tighten this dependency. I have to admit I'm not completely clear on what you mean here. Why should a -dev package for a C++ library declare a versioned dependency on the compiler? Why isn't it sufficient to declare a dependency, even a specific one, on the standard C++ library? Or are you saying that depending on g++ (>= 3:3.3-1) is the best way to prevent people from accidentally regressing the C++ ABI transition progress? If so, shouldn't we make that Policy? -- G. Branden Robinson | Communism is just one step on the Debian GNU/Linux | long road from capitalism to branden@debian.org | capitalism. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Russian saying
Attachment:
pgpAKsnvB2wf3.pgp
Description: PGP signature