Michael Tautschnig writes: > > Michael Tautschnig writes: > > > > Assume we do build the default gcc depending on a libppl0, now the > > > > libppl soname is changed to libppl1, a new ppl source is uploaded, and > > > > suddendly libppl0 isn't available anymore. And we still need to > > > > rebuild gcc using gcc. Making the ppl source versioned (pplX), we > > > > still have the old libppl0 in the archive, and can rebuild gcc, then > > > > remove the old pplX source and binary packages only built from the old > > > > source. Please consider this for the next version bump. > > > > > > > > > > Does gcc indeed build-depend on libpplX/libppl-cX? If this is not the > > > case, all > > > that must be taken care of is transitions to testing, if I'm not > > > mistaken. Or am > > > I getting something wrong? > > > > yes. while you may have the old libppl0 still installed in the > > system, a buildd cannot find it anymore in the archive, if it is not > > installed anymore in the buildd chroot. > > > > Sure, sorry for overlooking that point. What troubles me a bit is that I fail > to > find any package already doing that kind of stuff to find a bit of information > on dos and don'ts. After all, gcc-snapshot depends on a quite large set of > libraries, all of which should stumble over this issue at some point!? But > apparently the only alternative seem to be version symbols and to build > multiple > versions of the library from a single package.
No, the driver (gcc) and the C compiler (cc1) only depend on gmp and mpfr, which didn't change so versions yet. But yes, these packages must be handled in the same way for a change of the soname. Matthias -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]