Package: libstdc++5-dev
Version: n/a
Hi,
there is a versioned dependency on libc6-dev, but we have libc0.3-dev
in Debian GNU/Hurd. This breaks installation of the package (we provide
libc6-dev, but that doesn't work with versioned dependencies).
Thanks,
Marcus
--
`Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.'
> My concern is that locally compiled apps built against C++ libraries
> other than libstdc++ will silently stop working on upgrade. This is
> certainly not the most important issue facing us in the transition, but
> so far it seems to me that people are regarding it as so *un*important
> that it'
Package: gcc-defaults
Version: n/a
Hi,
the Hurd, after the recent ABI break, will just go directly to gcc-3.2
as the standard compiler, and doesn't need any form of smooth transition.
Please make 3.2 the default compiler for it.
Thanks,
Marcus
--
`Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' GNU http://w
>
> If temporary breakage of some applications is acceptable, you can
> spread this over a couple of days, by tsorting the 1000 packages.
>
or do a staging in experimental or somewhere else. Upload everything there,
let people look at it for a day or two then move it over.
This staging could a
On Fri, Aug 16, 2002 at 08:38:53PM +0200, Martin v. Loewis wrote:
> 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.
All of them? I sw someone do a count and there were around 1000 p
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> If I do
>
>#include
>
> 'assert' is not being put into the namespace std, although the comment
> in cassert implies it will be, and it should be, as far as I know.
>
> (I think this is happening with errno, too.)
You are mistaken. assert is a macro, and must be
On Friday 16 August 2002 15:51, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> I got sick of listening to people discuss the gcc 3.2 transition in an
> uninformed manner. So I've whipped up a transition plan which will
> hopefully get us from A to B without causing too much pain. Haha.
> I'm entirely fallible and I don
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Jeff Bailey planned to put these libraries in /usr/lib/gcc-2.95 (like
> > in the libc5/6 transition) and rename the packages containing the 2.95
> > libraries.
>
> How would this work? Would those using gcc-2.95 software have to set an
> rpath or $L
Matthew Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> All of them? I sw someone do a count and there were around 1000 packages
> currently in the archive. 10%. Per architecture. Is Jeff really going
> to bNMU all of these packages on the same day for all architectures?
I think this is the plan. You'll
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I sincerely hope that g++ 3.2 applications will be allowed to coexist on
> the system with g++ 2.95.x applications.
I don't think this will happen, atleast not for shared libraries. Any
scheme that tries to solve this problem will be horribly complex
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
>
On Fri, Aug 16, 2002 at 08:03:48PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Steve Langasek writes:
> > * In these cases, having a package whose soname is compatible with the
> > rest of the world is considered more important than providing
> > compatibility for binaries locally compiled by our users agai
Steve Langasek writes:
> * It is assumed that for the vast majority of C++ libs we ship, upstream
> has already transitioned to using the GCC 3.2 ABI, therefore our
> current packages are already binary-incompatible with the rest of the
> world. (ok)
right. One reason for the 3.2 release was
Package: libstdc++5-dev
Version: 3.2-0pre4
If I do
#include
'assert' is not being put into the namespace std, although the comment
in cassert implies it will be, and it should be, as far as I know.
(I think this is happening with errno, too.)
--Mike
ii libc6.1-dev2.2.5-11.1 GNU C
On Fri, Aug 16, 2002 at 09:59:28AM -0700, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> > * Add a Conflict with the non-`c' version of the package.
>
> why can't we have both installed, just like the libfoo6 and libfoo6g
> situation??
i explained this elsewhere...
Why don't we put the libs in a differen
> * Add a Conflict with the non-`c' version of the package.
why can't we have both installed, just like the libfoo6 and libfoo6g situation??
Steve,
There shouldn't be huge issues in the gcc 2.95.4 to gcc 3.2 transition.
Currently the only two major ones I know if are...
1) Rebuilding glibc with gcc 3.2 *may* require an arch to add a libgcc-compat
section to provide libgcc symbols, now .hidden in gcc 3.2's libgcc_s.so,
with lo
On Fri, 16 Aug 2002, Oohara Yuuma wrote:
> > * 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.
On Fri, Aug 16, 2002 at 11:47:07PM +0900, Oohara Yuuma wrote:
> [for debian-gcc people: please Cc: to me because I am not subscribed]
>
> On Fri, 16 Aug 2002 14:51:34 +0100,
> Matthew Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > * If your package contains no C++, do nothing. One fine day,
> >
On Fri, Aug 16, 2002 at 02:51:34PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> This is a proposal. You will be notified when this is a real plan
>Why don't we just change the sonames?
>Because upstream chooses the soname to match their API. If we change
>the soname then we render ourselves binary
[for debian-gcc people: please Cc: to me because I am not subscribed]
On Fri, 16 Aug 2002 14:51:34 +0100,
Matthew Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * If your package contains no C++, do nothing. One fine day,
>gcc-defaults will be changed to gcc-3.2 and you'll start using GCC
>
I got sick of listening to people discuss the gcc 3.2 transition in an
uninformed manner. So I've whipped up a transition plan which will
hopefully get us from A to B without causing too much pain. Haha.
I'm entirely fallible and I don't pretend to understand all the issues
involved with doing t
22 matches
Mail list logo
