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

Re: Should we have two versions of Boost in the archive?



On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 05:22:45PM +0000, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> A new version (1.35) of the Boost library collection was released
> yesterday.  I'd like to get it packaged for Debian ASAP.

  You're aware that we're trying to release and that you shouldn't
upload things you are not sure will transition in time without
disturbing other transitions too much ?

  Is there any immediate gain to those new libraries over 1.34.1 that
warrant such a haste ?

> The question is: whether to simply replace the existing version
> (1.34.1) as we have always done, or to have the old and new both
> available in the library?

  There should definitely be one only given that if I read the version
number correctly, 1.35 shouldn't be *that* disruptive wrt 1.34.1.

> In the past, we've always supported a single version of boost.  But
> changing versions seems to cause a lot of convulsions,

  Well the proper approach then, is to package 1.35 locally, and rebuild
its rdeps to have a clue about the wideness of the breakages. But
throwing into a new transition with a package as painful as Boost is to
transition, withouth having a single clue of what will happen is
unconsciousness.


> P.S.  For the new version of Boost, I plan to remove the compiler 
> version from the library SONAMES.

  *THAT* would be an excellent thing to do, and if we are going to
transition, it seems opportune to do it at the same time.


-- 
·O·  Pierre Habouzit
··O                                                madcoder@debian.org
OOO                                                http://www.madism.org

Attachment: pgp891oGXBQYW.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: