On 10 October 2017 at 14:26, Michael Stone <mst...@debian.org> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 02:16:36PM +0100, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote: >> >> On 10 October 2017 at 14:07, Gert Wollny <gw.foss...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> I think nobody would object if you set the flag to -std=c++98 for a >>> certain package, especially if upstream is dead or unwilling to move to >>> a newer standard, but I wouldn't want to see it as the default. >>> >> >> We, as a distribution, are better than that. Please provide URLs to >> FTBFS with c++11 bug report that is of concern for you, and I will try >> to look into it to fix the FTBFS with a distro patch. > > > I would hope that debian wouldn't fork a package specifically to change the > c++ standards version over upstream objections. That sounds like a long term > maintainence nightmare in itself. >
Which upstream? URLs to upstream bug reports would be considered by me as well. I am happy to talk to them and upstream patches that would be acceptable to them. Most build systems to build-time configuration to check if compiler's default standards version is at least this much, and if not does it support this much, and in that case it adds flags to force higher/newer standards version. This sometimes causes integration issues downstream in the distributions, but that bit is totally within the realm of the distribution to fix / ignore / work-around as needed. > If upstream is dead that's a different story, but should really involve > serious thought about whether becoming upstream is better than removing the > package. > Mike Stone > -- Regards, Dimitri.
