| 1 |
On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 15:56:21 -0400 |
| 2 |
Ian Stakenvicius <axs@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 5 |
> Hash: SHA256 |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> On 30/10/12 03:45 PM, Tomáš Chvátal wrote: |
| 8 |
> > Dne Út 30. října 2012 20:24:26, Michał Górny napsal(a): |
| 9 |
> >> On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 11:30:16 -0700 |
| 10 |
> >> |
| 11 |
> >> Diego Elio Pettenò <flameeyes@×××××××××.eu> wrote: |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> >> |
| 14 |
> >>> So given that it's a PITA for the maintainers, a PITA for the |
| 15 |
> >>> users, eselect boost has been shown to be a bad idea and so on |
| 16 |
> >>> ... can we just go back to just install it and that's about |
| 17 |
> >>> it? |
| 18 |
> >> |
| 19 |
> >> How are you going to solve the issue of a lot of packages being |
| 20 |
> >> broken with new boost versions? Are you volunteering to keep |
| 21 |
> >> fixing them with each release? |
| 22 |
> > |
| 23 |
> > Simple, as any other lib, depend on older version and possibly port |
| 24 |
> > it forward. If that does not work then mask and wipe. Life goes |
| 25 |
> > on. |
| 26 |
> > |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> If we un-slot boost there won't be an 'older' version available on |
| 29 |
> users systems anymore; when the new boost hits ~arch and then stable, |
| 30 |
> all ~arch / stable rdeps will -need- to build against that version of |
| 31 |
> boost, period (or be lastrite'd as ssuominen suggested) .... unless |
| 32 |
> i'm missing your meaning here? |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
a sane pm wont try to upgrade to version 5 if <5 is required by some |
| 35 |
package. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
+1 for unslotting |
Archives