libstdc++-v3 stability?

[Joe Buck]

Ben writes:
> I just got asked this question [about ABI stability] by Red Hat, yesterday.
> 
> Since it seems to be the issue du jure with OS vendors, I'll tell you 
> what I told them:

s/jure/jour/

> 1) The library ABI for gcc-3.1.x will remain fixed for the life of gcc-3.1.
> This means no-ABI-breaking fixes in gcc-3.1.x's libstdc++. We tried to do 
> this with gcc-3.0.x, but lack of symbol versioning got in the way.
> 
> 2) I'm suggesting source-compatibility for standards-compliant C++. 
> Binary-compatibility issues between gcc-3.1.x and gcc-3.2.x can be dealt 
> with via compatibility-libraries, the same as for a "C" library. 

I will be delighted if the major GNU/Linux distributors can all sign up to
this.  If everyone ships libraries supporting the 3.x ABI, with plans
to provide compatibility packages with libraries supporting the 3.y ABI
where y != x, then we can solve the problems that led the LSB people to
throw up their hands and tell applications providers to just static-link
C++ programs.

Since one of those y's will be "0" (Debian will provide 3.0.x in woody,
though not as the default), then a 3.0.3 compatibility library can be
provides as well for those who need it.

This will solve a lot of problems and remove a major PR problem for Red
Hat (ill-informed accusations that the 2.96 incompatibilities were some
kind of sinister plot).