Re: Incompatible change to Boost library names
* Roger Leigh (firstname.lastname@example.org) [090830 19:13]:
> On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 11:59:35AM -0500, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
> > I'm open to suggestions. Perhaps the best way forward is to
> > re-introduce an -mt variant name as a symlink to the non-mt name. If
> > that's agreeable, I'll get it done today.
> I can't speak for the release team, but if that could be done for
> 1.59 and then dropped for 1.60, it would at least keep existing
> packages building during a transition period. If the other boost
> package maintainers could be notified of this, it then gives us a
> month or so of breathing space to fix everything up. I guess then
> moving to 1.60 should then be relatively pain-free.
I need to admit I'm not deep into technical knowledge here, so I'll
probably agree to anything that allows us to not have an hard break,
but a smoother transition. The above sounds fine to me but I do not
understand it to an appropriate level to say if it's really good or
In other words: Steve, Roger, if you think it's a good thing, then
please do it.