Re: g++/libstdc++-dev [was Re: X Strike Force SVN commit: rev 69 - branches/4.3.0/sid/debian]
Branden Robinson writes:
> On Fri, May 30, 2003 at 03:36:41PM -0400, Phil Edwards wrote:
> > On Fri, May 30, 2003 at 08:03:38AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > > > Well, uh, so what? If G++ 3.2 and 3.3 have compatible ABIs, and the
> > > > standard C++ libraries are compatible at the source level, does the
> > > > above really matter?
> > >
> > > I don'know, if the libraries are compatible at "source level", the
> > > combination of g++ and library (from the same gcc source) should be.
> > The standard C++ library is compatible at the source level (i.e., recompiles
> > should Just Work), with the exception of deprecated stuff and odd extensions.
> All right, then I continue to suspect that the right thing for the -dev
> package question is the following:
> Package: xlibmesa3-glu-dev
> -Depends: xlibmesa3-glu, xlibmesa-gl-dev | libgl-dev, libstdc++5-dev, libc6-dev | libc-dev
> +Depends: xlibmesa3-glu, xlibmesa-gl-dev | libgl-dev, libstdc++5-dev | libstdc++-dev, libc6-dev | libc-dev
> This library should be linkable against libstdc++. Which one should be
> used is a matter for Policy to specify and build-essential to enforce.
The dependency on libstdc++5-dev is meaningless, the files in the
package are not used for the build, if you are building using g++ (>=
3:3.3). But it doesn't hurt either. Take libstdc++5-3.3-dev, if you
really want a dependency on libstdc++-dev.