[Pkg-ace-devel] Upload of ACE+TAO 6.0.3+2.0.3 to experimental

[Thomas Girard]

Le 01/08/2011 16:02, Pau Garcia i Quiles a écrit :
>>  1. clone the repo:
>>      git clone git://anonscm.debian.org/pkg-ace/pkg-ace.git
>>    for anonymous access, or if you have your key on Alioth:
>>      git clone git+ssh://git.debian.org/git/pkg-ace/pkg-ace.git
>>
>>    @Marek, Pau: can you please confirm you have RW access to the git
>>    repo on Alioth?
>>
> I can confirm I can NOT even clone the repository with git+ssh :-/
> 
> After the Alioth fiasco, I couldn't access authenticated repositories
> anymore. As I was so busy lately, I had not had time to even try to figure
> who I need to contact. Do you have a pointer? 

I think generating an ssh key and uploading it to Alioth should do. Did
you try? I'll send you pointers as soon as I find them again.

>   * investigate whether ACE or the packaging, could benefit using a
>>   better versionning mechanism {?}.
>>   Indeed for every release we have to go to NEW because the library
>>   SONAME changes. How far is ACE+TAO from a stable API? This should be
>>   discussed with upstream, but I think measuring diff for past release
>>   may help. I see two different tools that could help here:
>>     - dpkg symbol files [4]
>>
> 
> Last time I tried this (a couple of years ago, maybe more), this was nearly
> impossible to use for C++ due to different mangling on different
> architectures. IIRC some work was done in that regard, but I cannot find a
> link. Do you have any experience with this? Does it work well for C++? 

I also seem to recall progress was made in that field, with no real
example to mention though. Having a look at big C++ packages may give
hints. I don't have experiencing either, but I think if we can
make it work for ACE we'll learn a lot. But is it worth it?

> The best way to avoid soname problems is to use pimpl in ACE, like Qt does.
> That would make ACE a bit slower, bigger, and would require a ton of work to
> implement :-(
> 
>     - abi-compliance-checker [5]
>>
>>
> When we first tried this tool (version 1.0) in KDE, we discovered it was not
> too good. I don't know if it has got any better.

Ok, thanks for sharing. What were its shortcomings?

Thomas