On Tue, May 04, 2010 at 09:43:47AM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > On Tue, May 4, 2010 08:34, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote: > > "Steve M. Robbins" <steve@sumost.ca> writes: > >> Regarding the boost-defaults transition to 1.42: is there a status > >> summary of the binNMU campaign? Is there a list of the packages that > >> still depend on Boost 1.40 -- or, better an simple command that > >> I can dig up this info myself? > > > > dak rm -Rn -s unstable boost1.40 (on merkel or ries) will tell you which > > packages would get broken if boost1.40 would be removed from unstable. Thanks. Can you folks schedule the required binNMUs for this, please? > Also note that there are a number of packages which explicitly > build-depend on boost1.40 packages (as shown by the command Marc > mentioned) which are therefore not able to be binNMUed to support 1.42: > > # Broken Build-Depends: [...] OK, I've contacted the maintainers and will work with them to get new uploads done in the near future. Hopefully this will allow boost1.40 to be removed in time to upload boost1.43. -Steve
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature