| 1 |
Anthony G. Basile posted on Sun, 19 Oct 2014 18:59:41 -0400 as excerpted: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On 10/19/14 18:57, Jeroen Roovers wrote: |
| 4 |
>> On Sun, 19 Oct 2014 18:53:43 -0400 "Anthony G. Basile" |
| 5 |
>> <blueness@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
>>> we may want to inform users about breakage at the ABI level in case |
| 8 |
>>> they do something like add -std=c++11 to their global CXXFLAGS. |
| 9 |
>> You mean tell them they get to keep the pieces? |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Yes. I'm saying it politely. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
The news item seems to suggest that users will be fine if they switch |
| 14 |
/everything/ using C++ to the new standard, alto it might be a bit tough |
| 15 |
getting to that point, but I'd guess an emerge --emptytree @world should |
| 16 |
do it, keeping track of what breaks if anything and attempting a later |
| 17 |
remerge of that package, which is what I've done when I've gone a year or |
| 18 |
two between upgrades, for instance, and it has taken patience but has |
| 19 |
worked. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
But here it looks like the intent is to say they're on their own if they |
| 22 |
do it, even if the do it /all/ (using emptytree or the like to ensure |
| 23 |
it's all done in at least recorded dependency order), which is a quite |
| 24 |
different message than what I got from reading the news item. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
So if you really wish to say that people electing to try c++11 are on |
| 27 |
their own, even if they rebuild everything, the news item needs to be |
| 28 |
reworded to say that. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
| 32 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
| 33 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |
Archives