On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 05:32:27PM -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote: > On Tue, 2005-05-24 at 20:11 -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 05:14:42PM -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote: > > > Well, if I were running the show, the 'clock' would only start running > > > when it was consensus among the libstdc++ developers that the soname > > > would not be bumped again - that henceforth libstdc++ was committed to > > > binary compatibility as good as glibc's. Or better, if y'all can manage > > > it. It doesn't sound like we're there yet, to me. > > > > If that's why you were confused by my response, I was not suggesting > > freezing the ABI. I think it's an awful idea. > > Why? To be honest, I keep harping on this mostly because I think it > should happen. All the C++-in-GCC noise is a digression. > > You know how much work it is for the distributors every time we bump the > libstdc++ soname. Why wouldn't we want to stop inflicting that pain on > them?
I know exactly how much work it is for Debian. I wouldn't mind slowing down. I wouldn't mind using symbol versioning to solve the problem, if I honestly thought that were feasible (which I don't, for a C++ implementation library). But the fact of the matter is, the distros know how to deal with this once in a while. I think that it's more important that we continue to improve the library, for now. In a couple years I'll probably think differently. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery, LLC
