Dnia 2013-12-19, o godz. 00:56:31 "C. Bergström" <[email protected]> napisał(a):
> 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? No. Only the libs that change their ABI in C++11. > "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 What's wrong with this solution: 1. distro-specific compiler patching is wrong, 2. kinda FHS deviation, at least in spirit of lib<qual> directory. We could go with '-L' but this is very fragile anyway. It's *very easy* for the compiler to link the 'wrong' library due to -L/usr/lib64 being added by some kind of foo-config. -- Best regards, Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
