Re: Pull requests for compat-gcc-34

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 08/02/18 01:31 +0100, Rafal Luzynski wrote:
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)

?

Ah yes, good idea. That is a more precise requirement.
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx




[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]

  Powered by Linux