Re: ICU transition status - boost sonames
(apologies for breaking threads, I'm not subscribed and can't hack the
References line)
Steve Langasek wrote:
> Jay Berkenbilt wrote:
> > (Though I'm surprised that going from gcc 4.1 to 4.2 is really an ABI
> > change.)
>
> It's not, except that the boost Debian packages are encoding the gcc version
> in the soname by hand. This is wrong, but needs to be addressed in order to
> get icu through in a timely fashion.
Back when monotone used a bunch of boost modules that included
libraries (as opposed to just headers), the upstream mailing list
would regularly get reports that the binary segfaulted on most
operations, and the cause was *invariably* that the user had
hand-built boost, upgraded gcc, and then hand-built monotone against
the boost libraries built with the old gcc (using static linkage, so
the boost soname convention didn't stop them). We saw this a few
times going between gcc *patch levels*!
Thus I do not think it is safe to remove the gcc version from the
boost library sonames, despite how nice it would be in terms of
speeding up testing transitions.
zw
Reply to: