On Wed, 2015-07-01 at 19:44 +0200, Murray Cumming wrote: > > Overall, I think now is the time to break ABI. We won't have another > > chance until GTK+ 4, which might never happen. I think we should > combine > > this with using and requiring C++11, to get that out of the way too. > I > > suspect that using C++11 would cause ABI breaks too, but plenty of > > better-informed people doubt that, so I'm just being pessimistic. > > > > Does anyone object to the ABI break? > > Then again, if Ubuntu breaks ABI now (or if they do parallel > installs), > but doesn't use gtkmm 3.18 until the next Ubuntu version, the second > ABI > break will be our fault.
Ubuntu is breaking ABI due to the libstdc++ ABI change, like Fedora is doing. But they are sticking with gtkmm 3.16 instead of the current gktmm 3.17/18. And even if they were using gtkmm 3.18, I now don't think we'd get away with piggy-backing our own ABI breaks on top of the libstdc++ ABI break. Ubuntu and Fedora are been very careful rebuilding the right packages and handling the intermediate states, but I don't think they'd do that for us and we would never have been able to get them to use just the right version at just the right time to not be bothered. Sorry for the false hope. -- Murray Cumming murr...@murrayc.com www.murrayc.com _______________________________________________ gtkmm-list mailing list gtkmm-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtkmm-list
