On Fri, Aug 16, 2002 at 08:03:48PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: > Steve Langasek writes: > > * In these cases, having a package whose soname is compatible with the > > rest of the world is considered more important than providing > > compatibility for binaries locally compiled by our users against the > > old, broken ABI. (ok) > Jeff Bailey planned to put these libraries in /usr/lib/gcc-2.95 (like > in the libc5/6 transition) and rename the packages containing the 2.95 > libraries. How would this work? Would those using gcc-2.95 software have to set an rpath or $LD_LIBRARY_PATH to take advantage of the compat libs? If so, it hardly seems worth the effort; manual intervention is still required to make legacy binaries work. > > * For any remaining libraries, there are many in Debian who don't give > > a damn about getting it right, to the point that they don't want > > maintainers to get any grandiose ideas about discussing this issue with > > upstream and possibly hammering out a sane, cross-platform > > transitioning plan for the library in question that actually manages to > > NOT break anything. (not ok) > cross platform == cross architecture: yes. Jeff is working on a plan > to NMU libstdc++ dependent packages. > > But, I seem to be strongly outvoted on the last point. <shrug> > maybe we break some things in unstable for some days, but how do we > call this distro? My concern is that locally compiled apps built against C++ libraries other than libstdc++ will silently stop working on upgrade. This is certainly not the most important issue facing us in the transition, but so far it seems to me that people are regarding it as so *un*important that it's not worth discussing at all. Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
pgpCLtBE8cdt9.pgp
Description: PGP signature