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

Re: GMP transition: 4.3.2 to 5.0.1?

On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 13:23:41 -0500, Steve M. Robbins wrote:

> So, given that the incompatibility between GMP 4 and 5 is removing a
> couple of public functions, you believe it is safe to have the shared
> libs coexist in the archive?
It looks that way.

> That's fine.  Can you help me work out the specific steps I should
> take now?  
> In your previous message, you suggest to re-introduce gmp 4.3.2 as a
> separate source package (e.g. gmp4), building *only* the libgmp3c2
> binary package.  

> Raphael Geissert has requested also to change gmp to build libgmp-dev
> as a real package.  I would also make it provide libgmp10-dev because
> that package name was used in experimental and a few packages are now
> using it.
> In addition, I made the new -dev package also provide libgmp3-dev
> because of the strange situation of the Haskell compiler ghc [1].  My
> intention was for that to be temporary and remove it once ghc got
> bootstrapped everywhere.  In another of your messages you say
>     Again, the -dev package needs to keep providing libgmp3-dev
>     anyway, so changing the build-deps is unnecessary churn.
> What did you mean by this?  Do you mean that the new -dev package
> needs to continue providing libgmp3-dev forever?  Or did you mean that
> since it is presently providing it, there is no need to change all the
> build-deps at once; just let things alone until such time that we
> remove this "provides"?
The latter.  There's no hurry to drop the Provides, and keeping it
reduces the disruption in the archive since it means the move from
libgmp3-dev to libgmp{,-10}-dev can be staged over a longer period.

> Assuming you meant the latter, here is my understanding of the
> next steps:
> 1. Upload gmp4, as described above.
> 2. Upload gmp introducing libgmp-dev as the real package, providing
>    virtual packages libgmp3-dev and libgmp10-dev.
> Is this accurate?  Anything else?
I don't think 2 is necessary, or at least not right now.  It's fairly
independent as far as I can tell, and it's a cosmetic issue more than
anything else.

As I mentioned in my previous mail it may be a good idea to investigate
linking the libgmp's with -Bsymbolic to ensure that internal symbols are
looked up in the right library.  Not a blocker though, so we can
probably leave that aside until/unless issues pop up if you prefer.

Thanks for your work, and let me know if anything's unclear still.


Reply to: