[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Getting libboost into testing

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 from

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!



"Some little people have music in them, but Fats, he was all music,
 and you know how big he was."  --  James P. Johnson

Reply to: