Steve M. Robbins wrote:
update_excuses lists a "boost" package but no such package appears in the package database. libboost_dev appears in the database along with other Boost-related libraries.The source package is named "boost".
Ah, ok. Is there a good explanation of update_excuses and update_output somewhere? I know it's been discussed on the list a few times.
Furthermore, update_excuses says "boost" has only been in the archive for 4 days, when I'm sure it's by now well passed the required 10 days for consideration for moving into woody.
That would be my fault for uploading a new revision last weekend. There are no outstanding RC bugs, so I assume it will get into testing in due time.
Well, there's no fault involved here. That's what maintainers do! I must have missed the upload. Thanks for the heads-up.
One thing worries me: the old boost package built a whole bunch of shared libs. The new one does not. Is the testing script going to throw a fit that those packages will no longer be buildable fromsource?
Out of curiosity, what's the problem with Boost shared libs?
Also, why is STLport necessary? I know the old package used
it, but is there a compelling reason to do so? I know older
versions of Boost failed some tests with libstdc++. boost.org
is down at the moment so I can't check the current status. Is
there a plan to migrate to libstdc++ when appropriate?
Thanks, Steve!
-Dave
--
"Some little people have music in them, but Fats, he was all music,
and you know how big he was." -- James P. Johnson