On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 09:26:07AM -0400, Michael Stone 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.
Actually, in most cases that I've seen, upstream cares more about *also*
supporting older standards (for the benefit of users using older
distributions whose default compiler doesn't yet support the newer
standard) than they care about the default standard in use.
I think this question originated from a desire to manage C++ ABIs
better. It's true that introducing a new C++ compiler which defaults to
a different ABI will cause issues if not handled properly. However, we
already have plenty of tooling in place to manage ABI differences, and I
don't think this adds much.
Currently, when the default C++ compiler changes ABI, what's needed is a
coordinated transition where every C++ library package is updated in
turn. Adding a default C++ ABI at the package level does not change
that, and therefore I don't think we need to introduce it.
--
Could you people please use IRC like normal people?!?
-- Amaya Rodrigo Sastre, trying to quiet down the buzz in the DebConf 2008
Hacklab
