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

Bug#682460: marked as done (unblock: boost1.50/1.50.0-1)

Your message dated Fri, 5 Oct 2012 09:47:38 +0200
with message-id <20121005074738.GA31434@radis.cristau.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#682460: unblock: boost1.50/1.50.0-1
has caused the Debian Bug report #682460,
regarding unblock: boost1.50/1.50.0-1
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
682460: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=682460
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
Usertags: unblock

Please unblock package boost1.50

Given the long lifetime of stable Debian, I expect users would appreciate having the latest
Boost available.  This is a leaf package so should have no impact on stability of the
archive.

[Testing currently has Boost 1.49 as default and I propose to keep it that way
even if Boost 1.50 is also available.]

unblock boost1.50/1.50.0-1

-- System Information:
Debian Release: wheezy/sid
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Foreign Architectures: i386

Kernel: Linux 3.2.0-3-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
On Sun, Aug  5, 2012 at 23:17:18 -0500, Steve M. Robbins wrote:

> On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 04:34:31PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 20:26:36 -0500, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
> > 
> > > Yes, it's a judgement call, I'd agree.  My thinking is that (a) it's
> > > already building on all architectures (low risk) and (b) has somewhat
> > > better support for GCC 4.7 and (c) it's Boost :-)
> > > 
> > Could providing updated boost packages in wheezy-backports be a possible
> > alternative?
> 
> Sure: it is a possible alternative.  To be honest, however: it's not
> something that I will do.
> 
OK, I think I'd rather stay with just one boost version in the release,
so closing this bug.  Thanks for your work though.

Cheers,
Julien

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


--- End Message ---
Reply to: