Re: ICU transition status - boost sonames
On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 11:46:31PM -0800, Zack Weinberg 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*!
Which patch levels, specifically? g++ ABI stability was certainly an issue
prior to gcc 4.0, but there aren't supposed to have been any ABI changes
since then. If there are, we probably have a much bigger problem than just
boost.
> 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.
I would like to see some hard evidence of this in the context of libstdc++6
and the c2a ABI before conceding to put all the boost reverse-deps through
another (worse) transition.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/
slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org
Reply to: