On Wed, 2005-05-25 at 01:45 +0200, Paolo Carlini wrote: > >.......................... However, the active development on the > >libstdc++.so.7 branch means that we haven't even started the clock > >running on this criterion yet. > > Maybe a clarification is in order: actually, the name > libstdcxx_so_7-branch is somewhat misleading, right now. Indeed, it's > absolutely true that a lot of active development is going on in that > branch (consider the nice changes contributed by Chris Jefferson, for > instance, and more will come), but not necessarily all those changes > actually break to ABI.
Thanks for the clarification. I did not know this. > I'm not sure what the above may imply for your ongoing discussion, tough... Well, if I were running the show, the 'clock' would only start running when it was consensus among the libstdc++ developers that the soname would not be bumped again - that henceforth libstdc++ was committed to binary compatibility as good as glibc's. Or better, if y'all can manage it. It doesn't sound like we're there yet, to me. zw
