Re: backporting lyx 1.5.2 to Etch (libboost questions)
I don't know too much the differencies between the 1.5.x and 1.4.x lyx
version apart of the qt version used. I've used extensively the 1.3.x
version two years ago for my degree thesis.
I'd like the 1.5.x version for unicode support. I've always had
problems with the 1.3 version and special characters specially with
cut and paste between lyx and other programs.
In the next days I'll prepare these two packages and I'll upload
sources and binaries (i386) to my repository. Naturally I'll post also
the links to get them.
Does libboost 1.34 could cohexist with the 1.33 version without conflicts?
libboost 1.34 has not entered testing because renders some packages
So a backport could lead to the same results...?
2007/11/6, Sven Hoexter <email@example.com>:
> On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 02:56:17PM +0100, emisca wrote:
> > 2007/11/5, Sven Hoexter <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
> > > I guess that's the only possible way to build it without a boost backport.
> > > I'm not sure what's the policy on that topic for backports.org but I can
> > > imagine that a boost backport could be painful.
> > Yes, I think it would be painful and not accepted by backports.org
> Oh if someone likes to actively maintain it I guess it's possible to
> convince Alex to accept it. But it's not an easy task to maintain it.
> > > Personaly I would prefer a 184.108.40.206 backport because I still consider the
> > > 1.5 series to be not ready for daily use. YMMV on this topic and the chance
> > > for 220.127.116.11 is gone now anyway.
> > I've downloaded from snapshot.debian.net the 18.104.22.168 lyx package. I've
> > seen that it uses the included libboost.
> Hint: All releases should have tags in the pkg-lyx svn on alioth.
> Just in case you'd like to take a look at a special version.
> > Have you switched later to external libboost? Does lyx developers
> > maintain the internal libboost providing security patches?
> > Reading the changelog of them, lyx developers already patched it with
> > lyx related fixes...
> > (lyx-sources/boost/Changelog).
> AFAIR it wasn't possible to build 1.4.x with the external boost libs from
> Debian at that time. I didn't try it with boost 1.34 but there were some
> problems with the former versions.
> Since 1.4.x is no longer actively maintained upstream I doubt that someone
> cares about security fixes for it anyway as long as nothing very serious
> appears. So I would not count on upstream for this point.
> > > Beside that 1.5.2 did not migrate to testing so far because building a
> > > package like lyx seems to be a challenging task for autobuilders. So it's
> > > not a big deal at the moment to build with the included boost libs for your
> > > personal use.
> > >
> > In conclusion, if people would like to have an 22.214.171.124 backport, I can
> > build it in addition to the newer 1.5.2.
> Well I would like to have one but it's unusable for backports.org anyway
> because it never ever hit testing at all. It might be worth to build a
> backport and maybe distribute it through the pkg-lyx project on alioth but
> I'm not sure if there are more people beside myself who would prefer it
> for usage with etch over the 1.5.x series.
> The main benefits of 126.96.36.199 over 1.4.3 (the version in etch) are some more
> bugfixes and the file format upgrade to the format used in 1.5.x without all
> the GUI rewrites and Qt upgrades comming with 1.5.
> As long as I'm the only person who would like to have a 188.8.131.52 backport it's
> useless to provide them because I should be able to build them on my own. ;)
> Regarding the 1.5.2 release I personaly encourage you to go ahead and prepare
> a backport suitable for bpo with the included boost.
> You/we should investigate aswell how hard it realy is to backport boost to be
> prepared when 1.5.2 migrates to testing and would be a valid candidate for bpo.
> Talking with Domenico about it might be a good idea, too.
> I don't know what Per thinks but maybe you'd like to join the regular
> pkg-lyx team aswell. Personally I've not really much time for Debian work
> ATM so someone helping out can't be to wrong. There are still a lot of open
> bugreports ...
> I want to believe in a freedom that's bold
> But all I remember is the freedom of old
> [ Flogging Molly - Black Friday Rule ]