Hello Torsten,
On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 12:34:26PM +0000, Torsten Werner wrote:
> Hi Maintainer,
>
> Version: 1.40.0-1
>
> That would be the 3rd upstream version of boost in unstable after boost1.38 and
> boost1.39 and this needs a lot of ressources (mirror disks, network bandwidth,
> buildd and developer time). Please provide a roadmap which version of boost do
> you intend to maintain in Debian.
The roadmap was hashed out on debian-release last Spring [1].
The constraints are:
(a) Boost is on a quarterly release cycle [2], and
(b) Someone always wants the newest Boost [3], but
(c) Adapting to a new version sometimes takes time [see 1].
So we adopted the following practices:
1. Allowing multiple versions of boost in the archive to address (c):
users and dependent packages may choose to stick with a given version
for some time, possibly until upstream has adapted to the new Boost.
We settled on allowing 2 versions of Boost. As soon as 1.40 hits the
archive, I'll file a removal bug for 1.38.
2. Using boost-defaults as a convenience (similar to python-defaults &
gcc-defaults) for those who just want "the default boost". This
addresses concerns about having to update build-dependencies at each
release.
This has been working fine since May. I hope this addresses your
questions.
Thanks,
-Steve
[1] See threads starting at:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2009/03/msg00147.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2009/04/msg00251.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2009/05/msg00011.html
[2] https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/wiki/ImprovingPractices
[3] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=545704
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature