On Thu, May 29, 2003 at 10:59:01AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Branden Robinson writes:
> > On Mon, May 26, 2003 at 10:22:41PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > > Branden Robinson writes:
> > > > Questions for debian-{x,devel}:
> > > >
> > > > 1) Should libstdc++-dev dependencies be made "artificially" strict in
> > > > packages destined for sid so that it's harder for packages built
> > > > against, say, libstdc++3 to accidentally sneak in and start regressing
> > > > the C++ ABI transition progress?
> > >
> > > A dependency on the libstdc++-dev package is not (yet) needed, as
> > > every new major version of gcc comes with a new libstdc++XXX-dev
> > > package. Maybe it's better to depend on g++ (>= 3:3.3-1) or a specific
> > > g++ version if yoou need it. I'll file a report on build-essential to
> > > tighten this dependency.
> >
> > I have to admit I'm not completely clear on what you mean here.
> >
> > Why should a -dev package for a C++ library declare a versioned
> > dependency on the compiler? Why isn't it sufficient to declare a
> > dependency, even a specific one, on the standard C++ library?
>
> g++-3.2 has /usr/include/c++/3.2 in the include path, g++-3.3
> /usr/include/c++/3.3. Declaring a dependency on libstdc++5-dev
> (gcc-3.2 based) and building with g++ (>= 3:3.3) doesn't use
> libstdc++5-dev, but libstdc++5-3.3-dev.Well, uh, so what? If G++ 3.2 and 3.3 have compatible ABIs, and the standard C++ libraries are compatible at the source level, does the above really matter? > > Or are you saying that depending on g++ (>= 3:3.3-1) is the best way to > > prevent people from accidentally regressing the C++ ABI transition > > progress? > > > > If so, shouldn't we make that Policy? > > As the g++ package, which makes 3.3 the default, entered testing > today, I files a report to build-essential to do this change, maybe > this needs to be reflected in policy as well. For purposes of Policy I'm interesting in nailing down what it means for a -dev package to depend on something, what those dependencies should generally be, and why. -- G. Branden Robinson | I have a truly elegant proof of the Debian GNU/Linux | above, but it is too long to fit [EMAIL PROTECTED] | into this .signature file. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
pgpF3SqzhVCpp.pgp
Description: PGP signature
