On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 11:19:35PM +0200, Modestas Vainius wrote: > Hello, > > On trečiadienis 27 Sausis 2010 22:47:55 Riku Voipio wrote: > > There is a major problem with gcc 4.4 and armel - the ABI of va_list > > changed (for c++ libraries). We need to decide one of the following: > > > > 1) library package name rename (like c2a rename previously) > > > > + "the right thing to do" > > + partial upgrades work as expected > > - Some hassle for !armel sid users while transition happens > > - Quite a bit of extra work for many unrelated people (maintainers, > > ftp-masters..) > > > > 2) binNMU campaign > > > > - during the upgrade armel sid users packages will be broken (some > > already are) > > - even after, partial upgrades for armel users risk broken setups > > + does not disturb !armel users > > + no extra work for others but porters and release team > > > > 3) g++ downgrade or reverting to the old va_list mangling within g++4.4 > > for armel > > > > - A bunch of libraries and binaries have already been compiled with the > > new g++ > > - I think this is a bad idea anyway > > > > What way should we proceed? The list of supposedly affected packages > > follow (haven't had time to check myself). > > 4) it is also possible to manually create aliases that are mangled in the old > way (va_list as void*) next to the symbols which g++-4.4 will auto-generate. > This means some work for the maintainers (and porters) of the directly > affected library packages (fortunately, the list of which does not seem to be > huge). However, we win: > > 1) no painful transitions or disturbance on any arch including armel (i.e. it > won't be worse than it is now); > 2) no massive binNMUs of rdeps; > 3) less work for the release team except tracking how affected libraries are > being fixed; > 4) no extra work for other teams.
Interesting. Do you have a example on howto do that? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-qt-kde-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
