| 1 |
Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> Then, many developers just won't bother. Users will be the ones to hit |
| 4 |
> the incompatible package build failures first. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
Is Diego's tinderbox still available? |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
My feeling is that the non-downward compatbility (API-wise) |
| 9 |
of C++11 is much smaller than e.g. the gcc upgrades 4.5->4.6 |
| 10 |
or similar ones - except for rather exotic cases or possible |
| 11 |
name-clashes there are only very few changes and AFAIK no |
| 12 |
regressions concerning features - at most tiny syntax changes. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
If one could verify by sandbox that only a few packages are actually |
| 15 |
involved and can easily be fixed then one could make -std=c++11 the |
| 16 |
compiler default (perhaps it is necessary to disable some c++11 specific |
| 17 |
warnings by default in addition to avoid broken behaviour with -Werror |
| 18 |
which unfortunately is still used by some projects). |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Concerning binary blobs, one would need a list first ... |
Archives