Steve Langasek writes:
> * It is assumed that for the vast majority of C++ libs we ship, upstream
> has already transitioned to using the GCC 3.2 ABI, therefore our
> current packages are already binary-incompatible with the rest of the
> world. (ok)
right. One reason for the 3.2 release was a common base for Linux
distributions.
> * In these cases, having a package whose soname is compatible with the
> rest of the world is considered more important than providing
> compatibility for binaries locally compiled by our users against the
> old, broken ABI. (ok)
Jeff Bailey planned to put these libraries in /usr/lib/gcc-2.95 (like
in the libc5/6 transition) and rename the packages containing the 2.95
libraries.
> * For any remaining libraries, there are many in Debian who don't give
> a damn about getting it right, to the point that they don't want
> maintainers to get any grandiose ideas about discussing this issue with
> upstream and possibly hammering out a sane, cross-platform
> transitioning plan for the library in question that actually manages to
> NOT break anything. (not ok)
cross platform == cross architecture: yes. Jeff is working on a plan
to NMU libstdc++ dependent packages.
> But, I seem to be strongly outvoted on the last point. <shrug>
maybe we break some things in unstable for some days, but how do we
call this distro?
Matthias
