gcc-3.2 C++ ABI and packaging c++ libraries [was Re: [ITP]: BerkeleyDB v3.1]

[Nicholas Wourms <nwourms at netscape dot net>]

Corinna Vinschen wrote:

> AFAICS, the packaging is ok so I've uploaded it.
A certain someone [who wishes to go unnamed] e-mailed me last night and 
informed me about the potential incompatibilities in the C++ ABI that 
will be introduced when gcc-3.2 [formerly gcc-3.1.2] goes gold and how 
that would relate to the C++ API libraries released with db v3 and v4. 
Now this package's c++ library has been compiled with g++-2 since 
libtool refuses to link to libstc++.la in the new g++-3.1.1-4.  This 
certain someone suggested that I rebuild the proposed packages with only 
the C libraries and then wait until gcc-3.2 is released, at which time I 
should rebuild all the versions with the c++ library and rerelease them. 
I think this is a good idea, too.  So, I will prepare some new tarballs 
to replace the ones just uploaded.  Two questions though:

A)Should I bump the package version or just leave it as is [considiering 
it hasn't been announced yet]?

B)If possible, I'd like to know what the tentative plan might be for the 
gcc-3.x release.  Are we going to stick with gcc-3.1.1 for awhile or are 
we going to dive into gcc-3.2?  In either case, roughly when would you 
like to have the new gcc go gold?

I believe the second question should be on the minds of anyone who is 
maintaining or plans to maintain a package with c++ libraries.  Correct 
me if I am wrong.

Cheers,
Nicholas