On Mon, May 26, 2003 at 10:22:41PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Branden Robinson writes:
> > Questions for debian-{x,devel}:
> >
> > 1) Should libstdc++-dev dependencies be made "artificially" strict in
> > packages destined for sid so that it's harder for packages built
> > against, say, libstdc++3 to accidentally sneak in and start regressing
> > the C++ ABI transition progress?
>
> A dependency on the libstdc++-dev package is not (yet) needed, as
> every new major version of gcc comes with a new libstdc++XXX-dev
> package. Maybe it's better to depend on g++ (>= 3:3.3-1) or a specific
> g++ version if yoou need it. I'll file a report on build-essential to
> tighten this dependency.I have to admit I'm not completely clear on what you mean here. Why should a -dev package for a C++ library declare a versioned dependency on the compiler? Why isn't it sufficient to declare a dependency, even a specific one, on the standard C++ library? Or are you saying that depending on g++ (>= 3:3.3-1) is the best way to prevent people from accidentally regressing the C++ ABI transition progress? If so, shouldn't we make that Policy? -- G. Branden Robinson | Communism is just one step on the Debian GNU/Linux | long road from capitalism to [EMAIL PROTECTED] | capitalism. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Russian saying
pgpZS3tGSbeKM.pgp
Description: PGP signature
