[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: X Strike Force SVN commit: rev 69 - branches/4.3.0/sid/debian

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

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

Reply to: