[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

Branden Robinson writes:
> 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?

g++-3.2 has /usr/include/c++/3.2 in the include path, g++-3.3
/usr/include/c++/3.3. Declaring a dependency on libstdc++5-dev
(gcc-3.2 based) and building with g++ (>= 3:3.3) doesn't use
libstdc++5-dev, but libstdc++5-3.3-dev.

> 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?

As the g++ package, which makes 3.3 the default, entered testing
today, I files a report to build-essential to do this change, maybe
this needs to be reflected in policy as well.


Reply to: