On Sun, Dec 09, 2007 at 03:31:19PM +0000, Steve M. Robbins wrote: > On Sun, Dec 09, 2007 at 03:55:31PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote: > > On Sun, Dec 09, 2007 at 01:44:05PM +0000, Steve M. Robbins wrote: > > > On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 05:55:29PM +0100, Domenico Andreoli wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > rebuilding Boost as-is would require a new Boost transition. Could > > > > we continue to build it with gcc 4.1? At least until 1.35.0 is out, > > > > that could be a few months away. > > > > > > On the other hand, gcc default is version 4.2 since September 1. It > > > would be nice to have boost built with the default gcc. > > > > > > Couldn't we do the transition now? > > > > I'm sure the RMs are thrilled to go for a new 2 to 3 months long > > migration. Couldn't boost be less insane and stop bumping sonames for no > > good reasons instead ? I mean what's the point of depending on the gcc > > or glibc version, whereas Debian already tracks that down for them. > > Point taken about encoding gcc version in the SONAME. Mind you that > would still imply another transition! :-) > > I don't understand, however, why such a transition is so onerous. You're kidding right ? You haven't noticed that the last boost transition was _that_ long ? Boost has complex reverse dependencies: mozilla, some kde parts, probably some gnome ones, and so on. Each time you break it you have to be sure every single package will build fine with the new boost. That's so desperately insane to even believe that it's a smooth thing that even "wishful thinking" is an enormous euphemism for it. > For example, why doesn't uploading a library with a new SONAME simply > cause the depending packages (identified by the algorithm that > generates "excuses") to be scheduled automatically for a rebuild? You don't really know how transition in Debian works don't you ? I hope some people in the Debian boost team know better. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O madcoder@debian.org OOO http://www.madism.org
Attachment:
pgpBTpTgMd9Uq.pgp
Description: PGP signature