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

Re: [pkg-boost-devel] Should we have two versions of Boost in the archive?

On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 07:38:14PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> 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 ?

I'm aware of the release, yes.  I should have spelled this out in more
detail previously: to me, the "P" in "ASAP" means "possible, given the
impact of a Boost transition on the impending Debian release."  If the
release folks consider it too risky, it will happen post-release.

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

There are a number of interesting new libraries; e.g. asio, fusion,
math, mpi, and significant updates to existing libraries [1].  That is
compelling to me, but I concede others may have a different view.

[1] http://www.boost.org/users/news/version_1_35_0

> > 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.

Unfortunately, this is not the case.  Boost is not guaranteeing ABI
compatibility across releases, i.e. from 1.34 to 1.35.  So don't read
this as "major.minor" in the traditional sense.  The SONAME has the
complete version in the string; i.e. "1.34", "1.35".

So with this in mind, let me ask my question slightly differently:

    Is the API change dramatic enough to warrant keeping two versions
    of Boost sources in the archive?


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: