Branden Robinson writes: > On Fri, May 30, 2003 at 03:36:41PM -0400, Phil Edwards wrote: > > On Fri, May 30, 2003 at 08:03:38AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: > > > > 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? > > > > > > I don'know, if the libraries are compatible at "source level", the > > > combination of g++ and library (from the same gcc source) should be. > > > > The standard C++ library is compatible at the source level (i.e., recompiles > > should Just Work), with the exception of deprecated stuff and odd > > extensions. > > All right, then I continue to suspect that the right thing for the -dev > package question is the following: > > Package: xlibmesa3-glu-dev > -Depends: xlibmesa3-glu, xlibmesa-gl-dev | libgl-dev, libstdc++5-dev, > libc6-dev | libc-dev > +Depends: xlibmesa3-glu, xlibmesa-gl-dev | libgl-dev, libstdc++5-dev | > libstdc++-dev, libc6-dev | libc-dev > > This library should be linkable against libstdc++. Which one should be > used is a matter for Policy to specify and build-essential to enforce.
The dependency on libstdc++5-dev is meaningless, the files in the package are not used for the build, if you are building using g++ (>= 3:3.3). But it doesn't hurt either. Take libstdc++5-3.3-dev, if you really want a dependency on libstdc++-dev.
