[pkg-boost-devel] Bug#454605: [VAC] now - undefined (was Re: ICU transition status)
vorlon at debian.org
Sun Dec 16 23:26:36 UTC 2007
tags 454605 patch
On Sun, Dec 16, 2007 at 01:45:45PM -0500, Jay Berkenbilt wrote:
> I hadn't looked carefully at the packages yet. Now that I am looking
> at it, I see clearly from the changelog that 1.34.1-3 was an ABI
> change, so you're right -- I definitely don't want to upload it.
> (Though I'm surprised that going from gcc 4.1 to 4.2 is really an ABI
It's not, except that the boost Debian packages are encoding the gcc version
in the soname by hand. This is wrong, but needs to be addressed in order to
get icu through in a timely fashion.
The attached patch looks to me like it does the necessary handling of
switching to gcc-4.2 without breaking the ABI. I'm still going through the
QA on it, but so far it looks sane; if anyone notices a problem with it,
please let me know, otherwise I'll plan to NMU once I have a good build and
am happy that I haven't broken anything.
In the future, it might be a good idea to switch away from "g++-4.2" to just
"g++"; the -3 upload in experimental actually has a latent RC bug, because
it invokes g++-4.2 but doesn't build-depend on it, so that package will
break suddenly the next time the default g++ version changes.
> In any case, I wouldn't have uploaded without testing carefully. I
> have software that uses some of the boost libraries. I would at least
> have locally installed boost and checked my software, openoffice, and
> perhaps some other reverse dependencies. My initial comments were
> based on my memory of earlier conversations, not a careful analysis.
> But you're right, this is not to be taken lightly.
> In any case, I can either do an NMU based on 1.34.1-2 (which really
> should be safe since 1.34.1-2 is already in testing), or I can just
> drop it and let someone else take care of it. Unless someone says to
> go ahead with 1.34.1-2.1, I'll just leave it alone. If it is not
> resolved by the time I'm back from vacation, I probably will upload
> 1.34.1-2.1 though. Given that this fixes a 10-day-old RC bug, anyone
> could do an NMU at this point anyway.
Jay, if you have time to check on your side that this patch gives a useful
set of packages, that would certainly be helpful; I don't have anything than
uses boost, so I'm really checking that the packages look right on paper
after the change, not confirming that the libs still work the same at
runtime. This /shouldn't/ be an issue given that there's no magic in -3 to
make the packages work, but the extra assurance wouldn't hurt either.
And maybe you'd have a working package sooner than I at the rate I'm
currently going, and could feel free to upload it before me. :)
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/
slangasek at ubuntu.com vorlon at debian.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 3978 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-boost-devel/attachments/20071216/a0a4f5ba/attachment-0003.diff
More information about the pkg-boost-devel