Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I think you're confusing the C++ ABI with the SONAME of libstdc++. >> They're not necessarily the same thing, although right now they tend to >> change at the same time. Having the SONAME of libstdc++ change is >> actually probably more likely to cause problems than a C++ ABI change >> (since the latter is likely to be an edge case at this point), but >> either can cause problems. > If libstdc++ changes its ABI without its SONAME then every package > linked against it most likely breaks. That certainly wouldn't do. I think you're still too caught up on libstdc++, the library. The library is not the C++ ABI, just like how libgcc is not used by all C programs. The C++ ABI involves things like how classes are laid out and how function names are mangled. While it's certainly true that changing the C++ ABI would then change the ABI of libstdc++ and result in an SONAME change, it is quite possible to write a library that does not use libstdc++ at all but that is still affected by the C++ ABI. This may be completely theoretical -- I'm not aware of such a library in Debian at present. I'm just saying that I see what the original poster is getting at. > If the ABI changes but not the SONAME then the only sane thing to do is > to encode the ABI in the package name, e.g. libstc++-6c1002. Just like > for any other lib doing the upcoming c++ abi transition. We agree on this. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
