7.02.2018 14:58 Jonathan Wakely <jwakely@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 07/02/18 02:09 +0100, Rafal Luzynski wrote: > >[...] > >Also, just to clarify: I still don't know whether it is correct to just > >bump the required version of libstdc++, I just bump it because it has been > >done so many times in the past. > > "libstdc++ < 7.0.0" seems to be an attempt to ensure that an > ABI-compatible version of libstdc++ is used, and conservatively names > a version that is known to be compatible (rather than assuming that > all future versions will be compatible). > > The libstdc++ from GCC 8.x is ABI compatible with 3.4.x, so bumping > the Requires: to 9.0.0 (allowing any GCC 8.x release) is fine. Thank you for your review and the explanation, Jonathan. Of course, the reason why I bumped to "libstdc++ < 8.0.0" is that the version 8.0.0 has been pushed to Fedora only recently, after I had written the patches. > I'd be tempted to simply remove the version, so just have > Requires: libstdc++, or maybe Requires: libstdc++ >= 3.4.0 because > it's unlikely that libstdc++ will introduce an ABI break before that > spec file becomes obsolete. But maybe I'm not conservative enough :-) What about the things like: Requires: libstdc++.so.6 or Requires: libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4) ? Regards, Rafal _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
