Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> writes: > This is nowhere near a good solution IMO. > > First of all, it doesn't give us a way of ensuring ABI compatibility. > Users switch the flags and have to rebuild all C++ packages to regain > the ABI compatibility. The system ends up borked quite easily. > > Then, we don't have a good way of finding packages to rebuild. Users > could try to find out which libraries used C++ but well... it's nowhere > near good. Or they just rebuild everything... > > Then, many developers just won't bother. Users will be the ones to hit > the incompatible package build failures first. > > Lastly, this gives us no way of switching to C++11 completely without > modifying the compiler defaults. Even if we put '-std=c++11' into > profiles, most of the people override CXXFLAGS and won't have it. > >> Any anyway, if it is only for lldb, a piece of elog conveying a >> preferred solution would suffice. > > elog? I think you mean dying with CXXFLAGS that don't specify > the necessary standard. Which is kinda backwards to REQUIRED_USE... > > And then, simple CXXFLAGS solution would end up breaking users' > systems...
Michał, I am totally agree with you. This approach will leave lots of dirty tricks to the users. Therefore this is a decision between whether the devs or the users do this heavy lift. If the the reason is only lldb and less than 10 other ebuilds, I feel it not worth the develop and maintenace time. And if you have only met with this problem twice, I suggest playing with it by the simplest solution (via CXXFLAGS) for a while to avoid early optimization. This is just my honest view on simple vs complex. Given the expertise you hold in the realm of ABI, introducing a new ABI to maintain might not be a big deal to you. Then I understand. Cheers, Benda
pgpiPL6Z_CKNV.pgp
Description: PGP signature
