Re: [pkg-boost-devel] Upload of Boost 1.38

[Adeodato Simó <dato@net.com.org.es>]

+ Steve M. Robbins (Thu, 30 Apr 2009 09:28:12 -0500):

> On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 11:10:41PM +0200, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> > Let's make the unversioned development packages arch:any, and
> > build-depend on libboost1.38-dev. That way, even if the intent is to
> > only bump the major version when eg. boost1.39 is built everywhere, it
> > should be less problematic (ie. no uninstallable -dev) if it gets done
> > before, either on purpose or accidentally.

> I have done as you asked.  

> However, I don't understand (a) what is the issue you are concerned
> about, and (b) how this change prevents it.  If you don't mind, could
> you expand on this?  I think this may benefit others, as 2 of the 3
> -defaults packages I looked at as examples use arch:all.

Sure, I'll try to explain better. The point is making it difficult to
produce development packages that end up being uninstallable in some
architecture. So, for example, if one uploads arch:all packages
switching to boost1.39, but boost1.39 is not built in mips and mipsel,
no package build-depending on boost can be built on those arches. If, on
the other hand, that new boost-defaults package build-depends on
boost1.39, it ensures that the new development packages won't appear on
mips and mipsel until boost1.39 itself is built there.

Admittedly, the plan is only to switch boost-defaults when boost1.39/etc
is built in all arches and migrated to testing. But there can be
oversights when uploaded, so this adds a small protection (particularly
once you implement debian/control.in or equivalent).

I see you've uploaded boost-defaults already. In your previous mail, you
asked whether it was okay to upload already, or if we needed to wait
until the latest boost1.38 would migrate to testing. I gave you a
detailed explanation of the circumstances in which it was okay to upload
already, but it seems to me (at least, by looking at the SVN repository;
I don't have access to the actual files as uploaded to ftp-master) that
the second of these conditions has not been met, nor I received any
indication about the first one. That's unfortunate, but hopefully mipsel
will manage to build boost1.38/1.38.0-5 before boost-defaults clears out
of NEW, and we'll be safe.

Did the above explanations help in any way regarding your inquiry?

Cheers,

-- 
- Are you sure we're good?
- Always.
        -- Rory and Lorelai