Bug#833377: release.debian.org: boost1.61 transition
Hi Emilio, On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 07:10:03PM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > On 03/08/16 18:02, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote: > > The abi is complex and depends on multiple things. We do not wish to > > maintain same boost series (1.61) with multiple abi builds. Due to fixes > > to the c++11 inline namespace abi tags in gcc-6 (as compared to gcc-5) > > the ABI of boost-regexp changes when compiled with gcc-6. > > Hmm, can you clarify this? I wasn't aware that rebuilding with g++-6 caused > ABI > changes. Do you know if this affects other libraries? Surely we can workaround > it in boost by doing the 1.61 transition at the same time, but what about > other > libraries? I get the impression virtual functions are handled differently. For example, in htmlcxx (https://bugs.debian.org/811964), virtual destructors used to result in symbols attached to the declaring class (HTML::Exception::~Exception()), but with GCC 6 they result in symbols attached to the concrete classes (Uri::Exception::~Exception()). Regards, Stephen (not a C++ expert) signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#833377: release.debian.org: boost1.61 transition
Control: forwarded -1 https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/boost1.61.html Hi Dimitri, On 03/08/16 18:02, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote: > Package: release.debian.org > Severity: normal > > Hello, > > pkg-boost team would like to transition to the next boost abi, based on > 1.61 release. > > boost1.61 is now in experimental. > > The abi is complex and depends on multiple things. We do not wish to > maintain same boost series (1.61) with multiple abi builds. Due to fixes > to the c++11 inline namespace abi tags in gcc-6 (as compared to gcc-5) > the ABI of boost-regexp changes when compiled with gcc-6. Hmm, can you clarify this? I wasn't aware that rebuilding with g++-6 caused ABI changes. Do you know if this affects other libraries? Surely we can workaround it in boost by doing the 1.61 transition at the same time, but what about other libraries? > Therefore we > would like to only support boost1.61 abi, when compiled with gcc-6. This > makes transation to boost1.61 depend on on g++-6 being the default. Understandable. > There is icu 57.1 staged in experimental. This transtion is large as > well, and we would like to lead transtion to icu 57.1 with > boost1.61. Therefore boost1.61 build-depends on icu 57 or higher. Is there a need to tangle these? Can't we do GCC 6 + boost1.61 first, then do icu later? What is the benefit of doing them together, apart from saving a few cycles in the buildds? Is icu also affected by the ABI break when rebuilt with g++-6 ? > Please let me know if you are happy to transition to > boost1.61(gcc-6,icu57), and let me know when we can coordinate the lot. Have you done any test rebuilds against boost1.61 (with GCC 6)? Once all the above is clear, I think we are ready to start anytime now. > A boost tracker similar to the past boost trackers would be useful, once > the transtion starts. See https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/boost1.61.html (will appear in 20 minutes). Cheers, Emilio
Bug#833377: release.debian.org: boost1.61 transition
Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal Hello, pkg-boost team would like to transition to the next boost abi, based on 1.61 release. boost1.61 is now in experimental. The abi is complex and depends on multiple things. We do not wish to maintain same boost series (1.61) with multiple abi builds. Due to fixes to the c++11 inline namespace abi tags in gcc-6 (as compared to gcc-5) the ABI of boost-regexp changes when compiled with gcc-6. Therefore we would like to only support boost1.61 abi, when compiled with gcc-6. This makes transation to boost1.61 depend on on g++-6 being the default. There is icu 57.1 staged in experimental. This transtion is large as well, and we would like to lead transtion to icu 57.1 with boost1.61. Therefore boost1.61 build-depends on icu 57 or higher. Please let me know if you are happy to transition to boost1.61(gcc-6,icu57), and let me know when we can coordinate the lot. A boost tracker similar to the past boost trackers would be useful, once the transtion starts. Regards, Dimitri
