Re: Upload of Boost 1.38
* Steve M. Robbins [Sat, 21 Mar 2009 18:00:44 -0500]:
> > > If there's something for us Boost packagers to do in order
> > > that Boost 1.38 be accepted into Debian, I'd really like to
> > > know about it.
> > You can upload the ???boost1.38??? source package any time you want (which I
> > guess will be as soon as possible, which is good, since if where???re
> > going to do migration work, better do it against the latest version, so
> > that it???ll last more).
> > So, please upload boost1.38 to unstable at your earliest convenience,
> > with versioned package names for libraries and -dev packages just like
> > eg. boost1.37 has.
> Oh, but the boost1.38 source was uploaded Feb 22 with versioned
> package names as boost1.37 has. I was asking whether it can be
> accepted as-is or we need a new upload with something changed.
Ah, I see. Well, then it’s on NEW, ie. ftpmaster’s realm.
> > I suggest that we get started by introducing boost1.38 in unstable, and
> > once it has migrated to testing, start the migration work. This means:
> > * an initial upload of boost-defaults providing versionless -dev
> > package names pointing at the 1.38 packages
> > * a mass bug filing for packages build-depending on versioned packages
> > to build-depend on the un-versioned ones instead
> > * an automatic rebuild of those packages already build-depending on
> > the un-versioned ones (from Boost 1.34), and file bugs for those
> > that fail
> > I???m foreseeing this won???t be a cup of tea, but it???s something that has
> > to be done just once. With a bit of luck, we???ll get rid of at least
> > boost 1.34 and 1.35, and ideally 1.37 as well.
> This seems like a reasonable proposal. Do you forsee that we can
> upload boost-defaults to sid with boost 1.34.1 (also providing
> versionless -dev packages) still in the archive? When does 1.34.1 get
Yes, it’s technically feasible, and boost 1.34.1 would get removed once
it would have no reverse dependencies left. (If a boost 1.34 upload was
needed, though, it would have not to include the -dev packages.)
The only worrying question is how much work is going to be needed to get
packages that were building with 1.34 to be rebuilt with 1.38? Do you
have any idea about that?
- Are you sure we're good?
-- Rory and Lorelai