On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 12:21:20 -0600, Steve M. Robbins wrote: > Hello, > > On Sat, Mar 03, 2012 at 06:09:33PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 01:29:58 -0600, Steve M. Robbins wrote: > > > > > I would like to change Debian's default boost version from 1.46.1 to > > > 1.48. This change does not directly impact any binary packages. > > > However, it will affect the buildability of source packages. > > > > > I set up http://release.debian.org/transitions/html/boost1.48.html to > > track the rebuild status of the reverse dependencies. > > Thanks, Julien. > > I need some guidance from the release team regarding Boost. > > Last Sunday I uploaded another new version (1.49). It's still in NEW, > but I'd like to transition boost-defaults to 1.49 ASAP. I plan to do > local rebuilds as I did for 1.48 prior to transitioning and submit any > patches necessary to support Boost 1.49. Based on my experience with > 1.48, that will likely take some weeks (say 4). > > I'm not 100% sure what happens when a transition tracker is set up (as > for boost1.48). But I fear it may consume release team resources > scheduling rebuilds and the like. If so, the question for the release > team is: do you want to do it for 1.48 or wait for the 1.49 > transition? > > As far as I know, the Wheezy freeze is still on for June. The next > boost release should be in late May, which I suspect means it will be > too late for me to package for the June freeze. Thus my proposal is > that 1.49 be the default version of boost for Wheezy. This is why > I raise the idea of skipping 1.48 and concentrating on migrating > boost defaults to 1.49. > Sounds ok to me, I'll hold off on any binNMUs against 1.48 then. Cheers, Julien
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature