[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: GMP transition: 4.3.2 to 5.0.1?

On Sat, 2011-02-19 at 04:48 -0600, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 01:39:39PM +0000, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> > Have any of the reverse-dependencies been test-built against the new
> > version?  Does the move to 5.0.1 imply any source changes being required
> > for reverse-dependencies, or "just" rebuilds?  (I say "just" as there
> > appear to be around 350 r-dependencies, including at least five from the
> > GCC suite).
> I haven't done any test-builds.  Since the -dev package changed name,
> I presume that "just rebuild" won't work; rather, the sources have
> to edit their build-deps.

Out of interest, why is the -dev package versioned?

> Matthias also responded requesting:
>     I see that both the runtime library and the -dev packages have
>     different package names. But to be able to still use gmp3 for
>     existing GCC versions, please change the source name too, such
>     that gmp3 is still available in unstable after the upload of gmp5.
> Shall I go ahead and upload the source gmp5?  Then both gmp versions
> will co-exist in the repository and packages can choose to move to
> gmp5 at their leisure.

After some further investigation, it looks like this isn't feasible.
Neither gmp 4.3.2 nor 5.0.1 version their symbols and with both versions
in the archive simultaneously and co-installable, there's a reasonable
risk of a process ending up with both libraries loaded in to its address
space, which is generally not a good idea.



Reply to: