2015-08-17 12:47 GMT+02:00 Bastien ROUCARIES <roucaries.bast...@gmail.com>:
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 12:07 PM, Matthias Klose <d...@debian.org> wrote: > > Unstable now has GCC 5 as the default for more than two weeks. The > follow-up > > transitions are in progress, however the list of transitions at [1] is > not > > exhaustive, because this only covered libraries without dependencies on > > libraries which need a transition. There is now another test rebuild > [2] done > > with an augmented dh_makeshlibs printing cxx11 symbols in libraries > [3]. No new > > bug reports were filed yet. > > > > There seems to be a tendency to avoid transitions, where Debian doesn't > have any > > reverse dependencies, or where developers analyze the library API's and > come to > > the conclusion that no transition is necessary. I'm not yet sure if > this is the > > safest way forward, given the alternative of semi-automatic renaming of > the > > packages. > > > > As an example (no pun intended): for libsigc++-2.0 the maintainer > assessed that > > the one change wouldn't have any impact. However after a non-change > rebuild, > > some binaries started crashing (e.g. aptitude). The problem here is > that you > > don't see every ABI change from just looking at the symbols files, which > doesn't > > show subtype changes. One way to find out about these is to look at the > debug > > information (which is not always available), and compare the old and the > new > > package. Tools to do this are abi-compliance-checker and libabigail (you > need > > the one in unstable). > > Please notice that sadly abi-compliance-checker is not anymore > devellopped and upstream site will be going to rot. I dream that > jenkins jobs could be run for checking ABI at unstrable step. > Not the software by itself http://lvc.github.io/abi-compliance-checker/ Jérémy
