David R. Morrison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Dear fink developers, > > This is a revised proposal for how to handle the g++ ABI change, and > represents a compromise between Peter and myself about how to proceed. > I believe that he and I are in agreement about the broad outlines here, but > some details may still need to be discussed. > > The basic strategy will be to create a tree called 10.4-transitional > just before 10.4 is released, which will be very close to the existing > 10.3 tree, and in which we will be enforcing -fabi_version=1. This will > allow a smooth transition to 10.4, addressing other issues (like prebinding), > while delaying the full conversion to the new ABI until we can enlist the > aid of the broad community of fink maintainers. > > We will also create a 10.4 tree, which we will start work on quite soon, > but which will not become the active tree until the g++-using programs > have all been modified for the new ABI. In the 10.4 tree, we'll enforce > -fabi_version=2.
This sounds like a viable plan. > One open question is whether to implement a new G++-ABI field in fink > packages (which would override the default version number) or whether > to stick with the existing GCC field as the signal for whether things > have been converted. If we stash an ABI flag in the .deb,we can have fink whine if there is a mismatch between the ABI to be used when compiling a package and the one used for its dependent packages. dan -- Daniel Macks [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.netspace.org/~dmacks ------------------------------------------------------- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click _______________________________________________ Fink-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
