| 1 |
Am Dienstag, den 30.10.2012, 22:48 -0700 schrieb Diego Elio Pettenò: |
| 2 |
> On 30/10/2012 22:44, Tiziano Müller wrote: |
| 3 |
> > I agree. It really doesn't make sense to keep unbuildable stuff in the |
| 4 |
> > tree. The point of slotting it in the first place was also to force a |
| 5 |
> > rebuild of reverse dependencies to have them use newer boost (since at |
| 6 |
> > that time when boost slotting was introduced we had some API breakages |
| 7 |
> > occurring between versions). |
| 8 |
> > Now with the sub-slots we can simply use this feature to tell the PM to |
| 9 |
> > rebuild the stuff. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Well, as long as the soname is correct (which it is), with |
| 12 |
> preserved-rebuild (which is now available on ~arch Portage as well), |
| 13 |
> this is basically already possible to some extent without even using |
| 14 |
> subslots. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> Each new minor version bump (1.49 -> 1.50) will orphan the 1.49 |
| 17 |
> libraries, @preserved-rebuild will rebuild the linked packages. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> Of course for those that don't link to the objects, but only use the |
| 20 |
> headers, the sub-slots make it possible as well. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Didn't have @preserved-rebuild back then and I don't really consider |
| 24 |
this a feature (but that's just a side note). |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
One reason for the slotting was also to give people developing code on |
| 27 |
Gentoo the chance to easily have multiple versions of boost in parallel |
| 28 |
(for testing, etc.). This was also the main reason to introduce |
| 29 |
eselect-boost (besides making the transition to slotted boost easier .. |
| 30 |
a transition which never really happened since everyone kept relying on |
| 31 |
eselect-boost). |
| 32 |
But that too stems from a time when boost got a release once a year, so |
| 33 |
by now slotting is really just a burden. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Question is: do we want to keep the versioned soname scheme (which |
| 36 |
doesn't make much sense without the slotting) or not. |
| 37 |
I would like to see it removed together with the slotting. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
Concerning the maintenance: I'd prefer <herd>cpp</herd> and nothing |
| 40 |
else. The reason for this is that boost is tied to the development of |
| 41 |
C++ itself pretty closely and we want that people who take care of boost |
| 42 |
have enough knowledge about C++ itself.. and then: why not share your |
| 43 |
knowledge by taking care of some other C++ packages as well. |
Archives