Hey Jan, Jan Kundrát <j...@gentoo.org> writes:
> This perspective is interesting (and I admit that I tend to like it) -- > considering packages which won't build with C++11 to be buggy. > > I'm worried by the cost of such a policy, though, because we would > suddenly have to patch some unknown amount of software (and I'm pretty > sure some upstreams would reject these patches anyway). If we were an > enterprise distro with binary compatibility requirements, we would > also have to worry about that and either assume that the ABI changes > are non-issue in real world, or provide two versions of all C++ > libraries. I tried to check how RHEL7 will deal with it, but I wasn't > able to find any information about that. It also seems that Fedora > hasn't addressed this yet, either. > > Either way, it is reasonable to assume that some users would like to > build their own software and link it with system libraries. It is not > reasonable to force these users to build in the C++11 mode, IMHO. I'd like to make an analogy to the version bump of gcc[1]. We (gentoo) decide to support c++11 officially or not. If so, open a tracker bug to push it globally. If not, patch lldb to support non-c++11, or leave it up to the user to fiddle with the CXXFLAGS, where we only point the user by to proper docs. There is no problem to introduce a new USE flag for a new ABI. I am concerned with too many ABIs for an average ebuild keeper to maintain. Benda 1. https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=gcc-4.8
