Matthew Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > This is a proposal. You will be notified when this is a real plan
I think Jeff Bailey's plan is entirely different, and I like his plan more. Here are the differences. > * If you maintain a library written in C++, add a `c' to the end of > the name of your .deb, eg libdb4.0++.deb -> libdb4.0++c.deb. This > is similar in spirit to the glibc transition adding `g' to the end > of libraries. In Jeff's plan: do nothing. > At some point in the future, we will change gcc-defaults to make > gcc-3.2 the default on all architectures. At that time, you should > remove the setting of CXX and the explicit dependency on g++-3.2. You > should not rename your package to remove the `c' suffix until upstream > change their soname. In Jeff's plan: All C++ packages will be uploaded via NMUs. The package maintainer can upload their packages afterwards if they have to make other corrections. > Why don't we just change the sonames? Because it is easiest to have just two binary-incompatible libraries. They can't coexist, and they don't need to, most of the time. When they do, the old versions can be put in a separate directory. > Why don't we put the libs in a different directory? > > Basically, it's too complex. For the glibc transition, we could do > this because they used different dynamic linkers. For C++, we can do this because we have the source of nearly all packages, and can recompile them. There won't be much C++ libraries that are needed by packages for which we don't have the source to. Regards, Martin
