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
