Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Dropping slotted boost

[Samuli Suominen]

On 31/10/12 03:03, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> On 30/10/2012 17:49, Ryan Hill wrote:
>> And I had to argue to get 1.48 fixed.  I'm not sure why we have to keep so
>> many unbuildable versions in the tree.
>
> Because as mgorny explained earlier he's expecting some fairy to make it
> possible to _always_ install an older boost just because it's slotted.
>
> Honestly, from what I can tell, Mike is doing, exactly like for ICU, a
> direct proxying of commits from a developer that has been explicitly
> kicked out by Gentoo, mgorny is in some fantasyland where the presence
> of an ebuild makes it possible to build it just because it's slotted
> (and his only commit is to add himself to metadata), Tiziano has been
> last seen dropping eselect boost in favour of ... nothing, and Sebastian
> Luther I have no word of in a long time.
>
> I'm pretty sure that if the package was moved to cpp, or toolchain, or
> whatever, is going to be better maintained by whatever is going on now
> even if it's just going to be re-active instead of pro-active.
>
> In the list of bugs for boost, most of the recently RESOLVED ones are
> NOT related to boost itself, but to the reverse dependencies — lots of
> them also seem to be due to >=boost-1.50-r2 which is without eselect boost.
>
> Of the open ones, I'm pretty sure that a lot of them are obsolete such
> as bug #334659 "dev-libs/boost is built as non-PIC on amd64", plus we
> got a number of trackers, ICEs, stabilization bugs still open, and so on
> so forth.
>
> I have unfortunately a few packages using it; so does Tomáš — KDE and
> MySQL depend on it as well. Is there somebody else interested in the
> package? We might just want to take this over and restore some sanity.
>

[picked near random mail from this thread, as this seemed most suitable]

We have been in this situation before where I've had to clean out old 
boost versions because the toolchain went forward as it should.

   22 Apr 2010; Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@g.o>
   -boost-1.36.0-r1.ebuild:
   Remove boost-1.36.0 for gcc-porting wrt #287638.

So all of this should come as no suprise to anyone.

- Samuli