1 |
On 30/10/2012 17:49, Ryan Hill wrote: |
2 |
> And I had to argue to get 1.48 fixed. I'm not sure why we have to keep so |
3 |
> many unbuildable versions in the tree. |
4 |
|
5 |
Because as mgorny explained earlier he's expecting some fairy to make it |
6 |
possible to _always_ install an older boost just because it's slotted. |
7 |
|
8 |
Honestly, from what I can tell, Mike is doing, exactly like for ICU, a |
9 |
direct proxying of commits from a developer that has been explicitly |
10 |
kicked out by Gentoo, mgorny is in some fantasyland where the presence |
11 |
of an ebuild makes it possible to build it just because it's slotted |
12 |
(and his only commit is to add himself to metadata), Tiziano has been |
13 |
last seen dropping eselect boost in favour of ... nothing, and Sebastian |
14 |
Luther I have no word of in a long time. |
15 |
|
16 |
I'm pretty sure that if the package was moved to cpp, or toolchain, or |
17 |
whatever, is going to be better maintained by whatever is going on now |
18 |
even if it's just going to be re-active instead of pro-active. |
19 |
|
20 |
In the list of bugs for boost, most of the recently RESOLVED ones are |
21 |
NOT related to boost itself, but to the reverse dependencies — lots of |
22 |
them also seem to be due to >=boost-1.50-r2 which is without eselect boost. |
23 |
|
24 |
Of the open ones, I'm pretty sure that a lot of them are obsolete such |
25 |
as bug #334659 "dev-libs/boost is built as non-PIC on amd64", plus we |
26 |
got a number of trackers, ICEs, stabilization bugs still open, and so on |
27 |
so forth. |
28 |
|
29 |
I have unfortunately a few packages using it; so does Tomáš — KDE and |
30 |
MySQL depend on it as well. Is there somebody else interested in the |
31 |
package? We might just want to take this over and restore some sanity. |
32 |
|
33 |
-- |
34 |
Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes |
35 |
flameeyes@×××××××××.eu — http://blog.flameeyes.eu/ |