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

Bug#893006: marked as done (stretch-pu: package boost1.62/1.62.0+dfsg-4+deb9u1)

Your message dated Sun, 12 Jul 2020 20:55:48 +0100
with message-id <885925a8ed8702c3c70ad47035c151676d6b7e63.camel@adam-barratt.org.uk>
and subject line Re: Bug#893006: stretch-pu: package boost1.62/1.62.0+dfsg-4+deb9u1
has caused the Debian Bug report #893006,
regarding stretch-pu: package boost1.62/1.62.0+dfsg-4+deb9u1
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.)


-- 
893006: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=893006
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
Tags: stretch
User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
Usertags: pu

Hi,

I would like to fix #883987 in boost1.62 for Stretch.
The changes are basically the same as what is currently in testing and I got the
maintainer's go-ahead in
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-boost-devel/2018-March/004184.html

The source debdiff is attached.
The patched binary packages have been tested and the bug confirmed to be
solved.

Best wishes,
Philipp

debdiff --diffstat boost1.62_1.62.0+dfsg-4.dsc boost1.62_1.62.0+dfsg-4+deb9u1.dsc


diffstat for boost1.62-1.62.0+dfsg boost1.62-1.62.0+dfsg

 changelog                                             |    9 +++
 patches/flat-map-remove-partial-specializations.patch |   52 ++++++++++++++++++
 patches/series                                        |    1 
 3 files changed, 62 insertions(+)

diff -Nru boost1.62-1.62.0+dfsg/debian/changelog boost1.62-1.62.0+dfsg/debian/changelog
--- boost1.62-1.62.0+dfsg/debian/changelog	2016-11-12 19:46:50.000000000 +0100
+++ boost1.62-1.62.0+dfsg/debian/changelog	2018-03-14 09:54:41.000000000 +0100
@@ -1,3 +1,12 @@
+boost1.62 (1.62.0+dfsg-4+deb9u1) stretch; urgency=medium
+
+  [ Steve M. Robbins ]
+  * patches/flat-map-remove-partial-specializations.patch: New.  Upstream
+    patch to remove now-unnecessary partial specializations.  Closes:
+    #883987.
+
+ -- Philipp Huebner <debalance@debian.org>  Wed, 14 Mar 2018 09:54:41 +0100
+
 boost1.62 (1.62.0+dfsg-4) unstable; urgency=medium
 
   * New patch upstream-add-degree-reverse_graph.patch.
diff -Nru boost1.62-1.62.0+dfsg/debian/patches/flat-map-remove-partial-specializations.patch boost1.62-1.62.0+dfsg/debian/patches/flat-map-remove-partial-specializations.patch
--- boost1.62-1.62.0+dfsg/debian/patches/flat-map-remove-partial-specializations.patch	1970-01-01 01:00:00.000000000 +0100
+++ boost1.62-1.62.0+dfsg/debian/patches/flat-map-remove-partial-specializations.patch	2018-01-06 21:44:32.000000000 +0100
@@ -0,0 +1,52 @@
+From 5e4a107e82ab3281688311d22d2bfc2fddcf84a3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
+From: =?UTF-8?q?Ion=20Gazta=C3=B1aga?= <igaztanaga@gmail.com>
+Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2016 23:56:33 +0100
+Subject: [PATCH] Fixes Ticket #12534: flat_map fails to compile if included
+ after type_traits is instantiated under gcc
+
+---
+ doc/container.qbk                       |  1 +
+ include/boost/container/detail/pair.hpp | 30 ------------------------------
+ 2 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 30 deletions(-)
+
+diff --git a/include/boost/container/detail/pair.hpp b/include/boost/container/detail/pair.hpp
+index 63d1dead..4abff4b4 100644
+--- a/boost/container/detail/pair.hpp
++++ b/boost/container/detail/pair.hpp
+@@ -428,36 +428,6 @@ inline void swap(pair<T1, T2>& x, pair<T1, T2>& y)
+ }  //namespace container_detail {
+ }  //namespace container {
+ 
+-
+-//Without this specialization recursive flat_(multi)map instantiation fails
+-//because is_enum needs to instantiate the recursive pair, leading to a compilation error).
+-//This breaks the cycle clearly stating that pair is not an enum avoiding any instantiation.
+-template<class T>
+-struct is_enum;
+-
+-template<class T, class U>
+-struct is_enum< ::boost::container::container_detail::pair<T, U> >
+-{
+-   static const bool value = false;
+-};
+-
+-template<class T, class U>
+-struct is_enum< ::std::pair<T, U> >
+-{
+-   static const bool value = false;
+-};
+-
+-template <class T>
+-struct is_class;
+-
+-//This specialization is needed to avoid instantiation of pair in
+-//is_class, and allow recursive maps.
+-template <class T1, class T2>
+-struct is_class< ::boost::container::container_detail::pair<T1, T2> >
+-{
+-   static const bool value = true;
+-};
+-
+ #ifdef BOOST_NO_CXX11_RVALUE_REFERENCES
+ 
+ template<class T1, class T2>
diff -Nru boost1.62-1.62.0+dfsg/debian/patches/series boost1.62-1.62.0+dfsg/debian/patches/series
--- boost1.62-1.62.0+dfsg/debian/patches/series	2016-11-12 19:46:50.000000000 +0100
+++ boost1.62-1.62.0+dfsg/debian/patches/series	2018-03-14 09:54:08.000000000 +0100
@@ -8,3 +8,4 @@
 # fixed alternatively? boost-context-use-sysv-not-aapcs.patch
 no-gcc-march-options.patch
 upstream-add-degree-reverse_graph.patch
+flat-map-remove-partial-specializations.patch

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
On Sun, 2020-04-26 at 17:50 +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> Control: tag -1 moreinfo
> 
> On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 10:25:30PM +0200, Philipp Huebner wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > Am 02.04.2018 um 12:57 schrieb Julien Cristau:
> > > On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 14:51:10 +0100, Philipp Huebner wrote:
> > > > I would like to fix #883987 in boost1.62 for Stretch.
> > > > The changes are basically the same as what is currently in
> > > > testing and I got the
> > > > maintainer's go-ahead in
> > > > http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-boost-devel/2018-March/004184.html
> > > > 
> > > What made these partial specializations not be necessary
> > > anymore?  That
> > > seems like critical missing information if we are to make a
> > > decision
> > > here, to know if/what we might be breaking instead.
> > 
> > my guess is that only upstream can really answer that.
> > 
> > My work colleague confirmed that we're basically using the same
> > code as in the example at the upstream bug tracker and it fails
> > when using gcc-6 on Stretch:
> > https://svn.boost.org/trac10/ticket/12534

The windows for getting fixes into the final stretch point release
before it moves to LTS just closed, so I'm afraid that I'm going to
close this request now.

Regards,

Adam

--- End Message ---
Reply to: