Re: Log for attempted build of encfs_1.8.1-2 on m68k (dist=unstable)
Eduard Bloch dixit:
>Do you really expect me to hunt ghost bugs and identify the exact range
>of boost versions that did have problems (espcially those which
No, but I do expect you to add a versioned B-D on at least the
major version your configure script requires.
>Seriously? Or maybe you try to just sync your set of BASE libraries
>(like boost) to at least Jessie level?
We’re waiting on the boost maintainer to acknowledge our patches.
> and that is what counts.
That’s wrong.
tg@ara5:~ $ apt-cache policy libboost-serialization-dev
libboost-serialization-dev:
Installed: (none)
Candidate: 1.49.0.1
Version table:
1.49.0.1 0
500 http://ftp.de.debian.org/debian-ports/ unstable/main m68k Packages
tg@ara5:~ $ apt-cache policy libboost-serialization1.49-dev
libboost-serialization1.49-dev:
Installed: (none)
Candidate: 1.49.0-4+b1
Version table:
1.49.0-4+b1 0
500 http://ftp.de.debian.org/debian-ports/ unstable/main m68k Packages
Incidentally, both are in unstable, not even unreleased – packages
in the unreleased distribution don’t show up on packages.d.o but
are used.
@other m68k porters: time to prod the boost people again, maybe?
bye,
//mirabilos
--
“The final straw, to be honest, was probably my amazement at the volume of
petty, peevish whingeing certain of your peers are prone to dish out on
d-devel, telling each other how to talk more like a pretty princess, as though
they were performing some kind of public service.” (someone to me, privately)
Reply to: