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

Bug#744171: marked as done (transition: boost-defaults)

Your message dated Thu, 02 Oct 2014 10:15:33 +0200
with message-id <542D09A5.80806@debian.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#744171: transition: boost-defaults
has caused the Debian Bug report #744171,
regarding transition: boost-defaults
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.)


-- 
744171: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=744171
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: transition

As previously requested on Feb 28 2014 (see
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=704032#220):

    1.55 has been in testing for a month now and has somewhat better
    support for recent glibc -- e.g. it doesn't suffer from .#739807
    and #739904.

    I'd like to switch the boost-defaults to 1.55. 

Julien Cristau today requested that I file a new bug (https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=704032#230).


Ben file:

title = "boost-defaults";
is_affected = .build-depends ~ /libboost[a-z-]*-dev/
is_good = .depends ~ /libboost[a-z-]*1\.55/;
is_bad = .depends ~ /libboost[a-z-]*1\.54/;


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

Kernel: Linux 3.13-1-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 10/07/14 06:31, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
> On July 9, 2014 08:55:04 AM Julien Cristau wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul  9, 2014 at 01:39:38 -0500, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
>>> On July 9, 2014 08:15:27 AM Julien Cristau wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Jul  9, 2014 at 01:03:49 -0500, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
>>>>> That leaves two Boost versions 1.54 and 1.55, which made me realize
>>>>> that
>>>>> the transition tracker is too pessimistic.  Right now 1.54 is
>>>>> considered
>>>>> "bad", but it shouldn't be.
>>>>
>>>> Why not?  I thought the whole point was moving things from 1.54 to 1.55.
>>>
>>> No, I don't think so.  In my view, the goal is to release with at most 2
>>> boost versions.  The reason for keeping multiple versions is precisely to
>>> avoid having to do hard transitions [1] and boost-defaults was proposed
>>> [2] to keep the sourceful uploads to a minimum.
>>>
>>> This had been working well (in my view) since 2009.  Somewhere along the
>>> line the release team started demanding boost-defaults use the transition
>>> tracker. I don't quite understand why.  But if we're going to use a
>>> tracker, IMHO the transition to track is AWAY from the oldest boost
>>> (1.49) to the two newer ones.
>>
>> We removed 1.49 from testing months ago, 
> 
> Sure, but there remains an open bug to remove it from unstable.
> 
>> and for at least the last two
>> releases we've shipped with just one boost version.  What's changed?
> 
> I don't think anything has changed.  In my view, the goal is to release with 
> at most two versions.  So if we have just one, that's fine.

There was just one reverse dependency yesterday (gpsshogi) so I added a hint to
remove both that and boost1.54. We only have boost1.55 in testing now, so I
believe this is over.

Regards,
Emilio

--- End Message ---
Reply to: