1 |
On 30/10/12 22:02, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: |
2 |
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
3 |
> Hash: SHA256 |
4 |
> |
5 |
> On 30/10/12 04:00 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote: |
6 |
>> On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 15:56:21 -0400 Ian Stakenvicius |
7 |
>> <axs@g.o> wrote: |
8 |
>> |
9 |
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 |
10 |
>>> |
11 |
>>> On 30/10/12 03:45 PM, Tomáš Chvátal wrote: |
12 |
>>>> Dne Út 30. října 2012 20:24:26, Michał Górny napsal(a): |
13 |
>>>>> On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 11:30:16 -0700 |
14 |
>>>>> |
15 |
>>>>> Diego Elio Pettenò <flameeyes@×××××××××.eu> wrote: |
16 |
>>> |
17 |
>>>>> |
18 |
>>>>>> So given that it's a PITA for the maintainers, a PITA for |
19 |
>>>>>> the users, eselect boost has been shown to be a bad idea |
20 |
>>>>>> and so on ... can we just go back to just install it and |
21 |
>>>>>> that's about it? |
22 |
>>>>> |
23 |
>>>>> How are you going to solve the issue of a lot of packages |
24 |
>>>>> being broken with new boost versions? Are you volunteering to |
25 |
>>>>> keep fixing them with each release? |
26 |
>>>> |
27 |
>>>> Simple, as any other lib, depend on older version and possibly |
28 |
>>>> port it forward. If that does not work then mask and wipe. Life |
29 |
>>>> goes on. |
30 |
>>>> |
31 |
>>> |
32 |
>>> If we un-slot boost there won't be an 'older' version available |
33 |
>>> on users systems anymore; when the new boost hits ~arch and then |
34 |
>>> stable, all ~arch / stable rdeps will -need- to build against |
35 |
>>> that version of boost, period (or be lastrite'd as ssuominen |
36 |
>>> suggested) .... unless i'm missing your meaning here? |
37 |
>> |
38 |
>> a sane pm wont try to upgrade to version 5 if <5 is required by |
39 |
>> some package. |
40 |
>> |
41 |
>> +1 for unslotting |
42 |
>> |
43 |
> |
44 |
> ..until something else ~arch (or stable) in the tree -needs- >=5 (and |
45 |
> we only need one fairly common package for that to happen), and then |
46 |
> it all falls apart with same-slot conflicts. |
47 |
|
48 |
the new boost will be p.masked for long as every package in tree has |
49 |
been fixed for it, or masked for lastrite |
50 |
|
51 |
the policy is same as for any other package, can't set < dependencies on |
52 |
the same stabilization level that would cause same-slot conflicts |
53 |
|
54 |
so no problem there |