Hi,
At Tue, 4 Nov 2008 15:31:42 +0100 (CET),
Andreas Tille wrote:
>
> On Tue, 4 Nov 2008, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
>
> > Yeah, I think this change looks good enough, but I guess it should
> > also be okay to point to libstdc++-dev. Thoughts?
>
> Junichi, actually YOU are my expert about dynamic libraries. I've
> thought you might have had some reason to specify the version number.
> If YOU see no reason to keep it - just drop it. I'm kind of illiterate
> in this field and just realised that 4.1 is wrong and pins a package
> I wanted to remove from my box.
I think the intent of libstdc++-dev is to allow interchangeable use;
and since only libstdc++6-X.X-dev is providing libstdc++-dev; it looks
like a safe bet.
However, I'm not entirely happy with it, because you can satisfy
build-dependency with any of the libstdc++6-X.X-dev, and does not
provide a reasonable default, and it looks saner to use the latest
version.
Looking more closely, the development symlink (.so) is pointing to
/usr/lib/libstdc++.so.6.0.10, but there is still opportunity to
provide different include files; so that it can lead to subtle
difference. I think the ABI is supposed to be the same since g++ 3.4,
but that is modulo bugfixes, and I'm not sure if it's really sane to
use libstdc++6-4.1-dev for the includes and link against the latest
version of libstdc++ today.
So, in summary; I don't quite know, I need more information.
regards,
junichi
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED],debian.org}
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
