On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 11:46:31PM -0800, Zack Weinberg wrote: > > > (Though I'm surprised that going from gcc 4.1 to 4.2 is really an ABI > > > change.)
> > It's not, except that the boost Debian packages are encoding the gcc version > > in the soname by hand. This is wrong, but needs to be addressed in order to > > get icu through in a timely fashion. > Back when monotone used a bunch of boost modules that included > libraries (as opposed to just headers), the upstream mailing list > would regularly get reports that the binary segfaulted on most > operations, and the cause was *invariably* that the user had > hand-built boost, upgraded gcc, and then hand-built monotone against > the boost libraries built with the old gcc (using static linkage, so > the boost soname convention didn't stop them). We saw this a few > times going between gcc *patch levels*! Which patch levels, specifically? g++ ABI stability was certainly an issue prior to gcc 4.0, but there aren't supposed to have been any ABI changes since then. If there are, we probably have a much bigger problem than just boost. > Thus I do not think it is safe to remove the gcc version from the > boost library sonames, despite how nice it would be in terms of > speeding up testing transitions. I would like to see some hard evidence of this in the context of libstdc++6 and the c2a ABI before conceding to put all the boost reverse-deps through another (worse) transition. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
