Re: GCC 3.2 transition
On Sat, Aug 17, 2002 at 10:34:24AM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote: > >> Sean 'Shaleh' Perry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > or do a staging in experimental or somewhere else. Upload everything > > there, let people look at it for a day or two then move it over. > is probably upwards biased). This would represent a 2% increase in the > number of packages (1 GB increase in the archive size? 400 kB average > size for a library package? Sounds ok, we have some pretty large 1 GB*12 active archs in unstable == 12GB. Doesn't sound OK to take the debian mirror from ~60GB to ~72GB. Unless you are volunteering to buy 4 terabytes of disk space for our mirrors... Now, if we just did a subset of libraries that we have actual examples of being needed, that might be something to consider. We probably won't know what these libraries are until they stop working for people in sarge, however... -- Ryan Murray, Debian Developer ([EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]) The opinions expressed here are my own. pgpYD1T5kK641.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: GCC 3.2 transition
On Sat, Aug 17, 2002 at 10:13:17AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Sat, Aug 17, 2002 at 10:49:21AM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote: > > >> Gerhard Tonn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > The disadvantage is that we must know all C++ packages in advance. > > > A large majority of C++ packages depend on libstdc++*; the ones that > > doesn't are probably libraries which have been linked using cc instead > > of c++. For example libsigc++-1.1-5 and libgtkmm1.3-14 would pass > > unnoticed even if they are both C++ libraries. This *might be* > > symptomatic of libtool libraries, counterexamples appreciated. In this > > case you'd have to look for typical C++ symbols in the output of, say, > > objdump -T, e.g. __pure_virtual, __dynamic_cast. In general you'd have > > to look for traces of C++ mangling. > > It should be easy enough to find all the C++ libraries that need to be > recompiled. First, find all the packages that depend on some version of There's also the case that with gcc-2.95, you could cheat and write C++ without using the standard lib, and not have to link it. This ability is gone with 3.0 and higher. (note that telnet depends on libstdc++ on hppa -- but not any other arch). -- Ryan Murray, Debian Developer ([EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]) The opinions expressed here are my own. pgpmvnGHAdRYT.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Notes on current sid and libpng
On Sun, Aug 18, 2002 at 01:23:41AM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote: > libgdk-imlib2 was introduced, to allow png3-linked gdk-imlib, so > that gtk2.0 applications can link with gdk-imlib. gtk2.0 applications should be using the gdk-pixbuf included with gtk2.0, which is already linked against png3. gdk-imlib1 links against gtk1, and should use the same ABI everyone else does -- png2. > It is now possible to build against libgdk-imlib-dev (to link > against libpng2-dev) and libgdk-imlib-dev (libpng3-dev) I'm guessing you mean gdk-pixbuf-dev in the first one. > Christian Marillat decided to recompile libgnome against > libgdk-imlib2, and libpng3, so some parts of gnome1 are recompiled > against libpng3. And more ABI breaking here -- why are we breaking gnome1 compat with others? Our current gnome transition plan is to move everything to gnome2. So why are we changing the ABI of something that is stable and to be removed/replaced by sarge release (not that I agree with it, but that's the current plan). > I think the same kind of thing is happening with libgnutls[45], and > libgnomevfs2, > so I think applications linked with libgnomevfs2 and libgnutls[45], which is > many part of > gnome2, experience some problem. No, it isn't the case here, as libgnutls4 no longer exists in the archive. -- Ryan Murray, Debian Developer ([EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]) The opinions expressed here are my own. pgpBpa3s3FgyB.pgp Description: PGP signature
