(sorry for the empty message....) 2015-07-09 15:08 GMT+01:00 Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <[email protected]>: > 2015-07-03 14:12 GMT+01:00 Matthias Klose <[email protected]>: >> Package: src:libsdl-sge >> Version: 030809dfsg-4 >> Severity: important >> Tags: sid stretch >> User: [email protected] >> Usertags: libstdc++-cxx11 >> >> Background [1]: libstdc++6 introduces a new ABI to conform to the >> C++11 standard, but keeps the old ABI to not break existing binaries. >> Packages which are built with g++-5 from experimental (not the one >> from testing/unstable) are using the new ABI. Libraries built from >> this source package export some of the new __cxx11 or B5cxx11 symbols, >> and dropping other symbols. If these symbols are part of the API of >> the library, then this rebuild with g++-5 will trigger a transition >> for the library. >> >> What is needed: >> >> - Rebuild the library using g++/g++-5 from experimental. Note that >> most likely all C++ libraries within the build dependencies need >> a rebuild too. You can find the log for a rebuild in >> https://people.debian.org/~doko/logs/gcc5-20150701/ >> Search for "BEGIN GCC CXX11" in the log.
If I read this correctly, the only symbols changing are these: http://sources.debian.net/src/libsdl-sge/030809dfsg-4/sge_textpp.h/ //Returns text as latin1 or unicode with or without the cursor char std::string get_string(bool wCursor=true); //Change the text void clear_text(void); void change_text(const std::string s); >> - Decide if the symbols matching __cxx11 or B5cxx11 are part of the >> library API, and are used by the reverse dependencies of the >> library. They are... but there are 3 rev-depends (src:ruby-sdl, src:infon and src:supertransball2) and they don't call these functions, so I believe that they will not be affected by this change in ABI. >> - If there are no symbols matching __cxx11 or B5cxx11 in the symbols >> forming the library API, you should close this issue with a short >> explanation. >> >> - If there are no reverse dependencies, it should be the package >> maintainers decision if a transition is needed. However this might >> break software which is not in the Debian archive, and built >> against these packages. The popcon is only 0.33% for the library package and 0.05% for -dev, with a steep fall since last stable in absolute numbers and since 2006 in relative numbers. Upstream was last updated in 2003, although the core functionality is probably intact, it is not a critical package that many people use, so I guess that very very few people will be potentially affected, if at all. For all of the above, I believe that the best course of action is the easiest, to just do nothing. The second best option in my opinion is to rebuild against GCC-5 when ready, and bin-NMU the 3 rev-depds. Cheers. -- Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <[email protected]> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
