On 12/19/13 12:47 AM, Kent Fredric wrote:
On 19 December 2013 06:33, Jan Kundrát <[email protected]> wrote:
I'm worried by the cost of such a policy, though, because we would suddenly
have to patch some unknown amount of software
Given the nature that changing that CXX Flag globally for all users
could cause many packages to spontaneously fail to build, wouldn't
that imply that changing that flag would essentially be de-stabilizing
the whole tree, and a package being (arch) would no longer be an
indication of sane, tested behaviour?
This is really the perk of the USE driven process, the granular
piecemeal approach that does only as much as necessary, without
changing things that are already stable.
In practice wouldn't that mean you'd have to add c++11 USE flag to every
C++11 application and lib?
I just sent an email with some crazy thoughts - Your point is totally
correct - this "migration" needs to happen while not breaking the whole
tree. Logistically - what's the best way to maintain both those "ABI" at
the same time?
"Best case" both build and you end up with a linker problem (can be
worked around with compiler patches)
/usr/lib64/libboost.so
/usr/lib64-c++11/libboost.so
Worst case only 1 builds
this breaks down into generally 2 cases
1. Programs/libs which have intentionally adopted c++11 and don't
care about C++03 (clang/llvm/lldb)
2. Programs/libs which can't be compiles with c++11 mode
/usr/lib64/libfoo.so
