Re: Ralf's X backport compiled with the wrong g++
On Fri, Mar 21, 2003 at 04:37:47PM +0100, Ralf Nolden wrote: That's why I'm sticking with backports on a lower revision number to make sure that you can always upgrade. The XFree packages though are an exception for that because 4.3 isn't in unstable yet. As people are already using it on a large scale I'm probably sticking with what dannys gives me and then see how far we can get. The conflicts with the libs in unstable is a good idea unless xfree 4.3 isn't in unstable yet. As my packages are using 0woody as a postfix this should be a clear division (that's what everyone else is doing too) You said one mail before in this thread my repositories are large enough to fulfill the current desktop user's needs and you can get OO and Mozilla elsewhere. That's correct. The more outdated Debian stable becomes many people tend to have half a dozen different backport sources in their sources.list. Imagine there's a different XFree86 4.3 backport with a higher version number where all g++ libraries are compiled correctly with g++ 3.2 (e.g. because this source will give the user a more recent Mozilla) - after a dist-upgrade all packages compiled with your broken backport libraries will stop working. Ralf cu Adrian -- Is there not promise of rain? Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. Only a promise, Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
Ralf's X backport compiled with the wrong g++
Hi Ralf, the g++ libraries from your backport of the experimental packages of XFree86 4.3.0 you announed at [1] are compiled with g++ 2.95 although they must be compiled with g++ 3.2. The smallest problem are wrong package descriptions, e.g. in: -- snip -- Package: xlibmesa4-glu Source: xfree86 Version: 4.3.0-0woody4 Priority: optional Section: libs Maintainer: Daniel Stone [EMAIL PROTECTED] Depends: libc6 (= 2.2.4-4), libstdc++2.10-glibc2.2 (= 1:2.95.4-0.010810) ... This package was built using version 1.02 of the C++ ABI. -- snip -- Much worse is that this will cause breakages if people use these broken packages together with packages from sarge/unstable or if they use other packages you backported together with correct future XFree86 4.3.0 packages from sarge/unstable. Please fix your backport packages. TIA Adrian [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-kde/2003/debian-kde-200303/msg00459.html -- Is there not promise of rain? Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. Only a promise, Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
Re: Ralf's X backport compiled with the wrong g++
Hi Ralf,
the g++ libraries from your backport of the experimental packages of
XFree86 4.3.0 you announed at [1] are compiled with g++ 2.95 although
they must be compiled with g++ 3.2.
Nothing in woody should be compiled by 3.2.
Everything should be compiled by 2.95
Much worse is that this will cause breakages if people use these broken
packages together with packages from sarge/unstable or if they use other
packages you backported together with correct future XFree86 4.3.0
packages from sarge/unstable.
People who use mixed woody/{sarge,sid} systems without taking appropriate
care about g++ ABI WILL BREAK THEIR SYSTEMS.
Woody is g++ 2.95 based. So everything labeled for woody should be
compiled with 2.95 ABI. If someone wants to import something with 3.2 ABI
into his woody system, he must do that extremely careful and check all ABI
compatability issues manually.
Package: xlibmesa4-glu
Maybe package in the backport should be renamed, to make it harder for
people to break their systems.
Re: Ralf's X backport compiled with the wrong g++
fredagen den 21 mars 2003 10.10 skrev Nikita V. Youshchenko: Package: xlibmesa4-glu Maybe package in the backport should be renamed, to make it harder for people to break their systems. I put a c0 suffix to my backports, so that library is called xlibmesa3-gluc0 The only problem with that was only that every package that had a depend on xlibmesa3-glu also had to be rebuilt. But it prohibited the packages from inadvertedlty load a c102 package. Karolina
Re: Ralf's X backport compiled with the wrong g++
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Friday 21 March 2003 08:52, you wrote: Hi Ralf, the g++ libraries from your backport of the experimental packages of XFree86 4.3.0 you announed at [1] are compiled with g++ 2.95 although they must be compiled with g++ 3.2. Hi Adrian, well, considering that woody's default compiler is gcc 2.95 I don't see a reason to compile it with gcc-3.2. That would basically mean that I would need to do a woody transition to gcc-3.2 completely and there's no way I'm going to do that :-) Much worse is that this will cause breakages if people use these broken packages together with packages from sarge/unstable or if they use other packages you backported together with correct future XFree86 4.3.0 packages from sarge/unstable. I'm building woody only and woody is - as you surely know - relying on 2.95 as its compiler. If people are mixing their woody installations with stuff from testing and unstable they clearly have to know what they're doing - because they'll run into such problems. Either stick with woody (my repositories are large enough to fulfill the current desktop user's needs and you can get OO and Mozilla elsewhere) or go with testing and unstable. Ralf Please fix your backport packages. TIA Adrian [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-kde/2003/debian-kde-200303/msg00459.html - -- We're not a company, we just produce better code at less costs. - Ralf Nolden [EMAIL PROTECTED] The K Desktop Environment The KDevelop Project http://www.kde.org http://www.kdevelop.org -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+ex0yu0nKi+w1Ky8RAodrAJ4i9XTuSydEKgD8Y2Fl/2Y4aAjFxgCgsp2p hCsc/aRZBzfxXziDSQdm4AE= =iPUW -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Ralf's X backport compiled with the wrong g++
On Fri, Mar 21, 2003 at 03:09:54PM +0100, Ralf Nolden wrote: On Friday 21 March 2003 08:52, you wrote: Hi Ralf, the g++ libraries from your backport of the experimental packages of XFree86 4.3.0 you announed at [1] are compiled with g++ 2.95 although they must be compiled with g++ 3.2. Hi Adrian, Hi Ralf, well, considering that woody's default compiler is gcc 2.95 I don't see a reason to compile it with gcc-3.2. That would basically mean that I would need to do a woody transition to gcc-3.2 completely and there's no way I'm going to do that :-) the correct way is to do a reverse g++ transition, IOW: compile with 2.95, postfix the package names with a -gcc2.95 or a c0 (or whatever else you like) and let your library packages conflict with the g++ 3.2 compiled library packages in unstable. Much worse is that this will cause breakages if people use these broken packages together with packages from sarge/unstable or if they use other packages you backported together with correct future XFree86 4.3.0 packages from sarge/unstable. I'm building woody only and woody is - as you surely know - relying on 2.95 as its compiler. If people are mixing their woody installations with stuff from testing and unstable they clearly have to know what they're doing - because they'll run into such problems. Either stick with woody (my repositories are large enough to fulfill the current desktop user's needs and you can get OO and Mozilla elsewhere) or go with testing and unstable. Debian has a very good reputation for working upgrades between stable releases. One day Debian 3.1 will be released and people will start to do both complete and partial upgrades from Debian 3.0 plus your packages to Debian 3.1. With your current packages this will cause various breakages for many people. Ralf cu Adrian -- Is there not promise of rain? Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. Only a promise, Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
Re: Ralf's X backport compiled with the wrong g++
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Friday 21 March 2003 16:29, Adrian Bunk wrote: On Fri, Mar 21, 2003 at 03:09:54PM +0100, Ralf Nolden wrote: On Friday 21 March 2003 08:52, you wrote: Hi Ralf, the g++ libraries from your backport of the experimental packages of XFree86 4.3.0 you announed at [1] are compiled with g++ 2.95 although they must be compiled with g++ 3.2. Hi Adrian, Hi Ralf, well, considering that woody's default compiler is gcc 2.95 I don't see a reason to compile it with gcc-3.2. That would basically mean that I would need to do a woody transition to gcc-3.2 completely and there's no way I'm going to do that :-) the correct way is to do a reverse g++ transition, IOW: compile with 2.95, postfix the package names with a -gcc2.95 or a c0 (or whatever else you like) and let your library packages conflict with the g++ 3.2 compiled library packages in unstable. Much worse is that this will cause breakages if people use these broken packages together with packages from sarge/unstable or if they use other packages you backported together with correct future XFree86 4.3.0 packages from sarge/unstable. I'm building woody only and woody is - as you surely know - relying on 2.95 as its compiler. If people are mixing their woody installations with stuff from testing and unstable they clearly have to know what they're doing - because they'll run into such problems. Either stick with woody (my repositories are large enough to fulfill the current desktop user's needs and you can get OO and Mozilla elsewhere) or go with testing and unstable. Debian has a very good reputation for working upgrades between stable releases. One day Debian 3.1 will be released and people will start to do both complete and partial upgrades from Debian 3.0 plus your packages to Debian 3.1. With your current packages this will cause various breakages for many people. That's why I'm sticking with backports on a lower revision number to make sure that you can always upgrade. The XFree packages though are an exception for that because 4.3 isn't in unstable yet. As people are already using it on a large scale I'm probably sticking with what dannys gives me and then see how far we can get. The conflicts with the libs in unstable is a good idea unless xfree 4.3 isn't in unstable yet. As my packages are using 0woody as a postfix this should be a clear division (that's what everyone else is doing too) Ralf Ralf cu Adrian - -- We're not a company, we just produce better code at less costs. - Ralf Nolden [EMAIL PROTECTED] The K Desktop Environment The KDevelop Project http://www.kde.org http://www.kdevelop.org -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+ezHLu0nKi+w1Ky8RAgIJAKCL0lhHxjQ/4fQD+HjWIe/OJYnf8ACdGEMg V1GvXdP4tJeGpAHTZnMPLTA= =pyWY -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Ralf's X backport compiled with the wrong g++
* Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: well, considering that woody's default compiler is gcc 2.95 I don't see a reason to compile it with gcc-3.2. That would basically mean that I would need to do a woody transition to gcc-3.2 completely and there's no way I'm going to do that :-) the correct way is to do a reverse g++ transition, IOW: compile with 2.95, postfix the package names with a -gcc2.95 or a c0 (or whatever else you like) and let your library packages conflict with the g++ 3.2 compiled library packages in unstable. The same should then be done with various gnome backports: I got a couple of -c102 packages, when installing gnome2.2 from http://mirror.raw.no/ ftp.acc.umu.se/mirror/... Jan
