| 1 |
Am Dienstag, den 30.10.2012, 11:30 -0700 schrieb Diego Elio Pettenò: |
| 2 |
> Given the amount of headaches that Boost seems to give us all, now |
| 3 |
> thanks to the recent changes even more because Gentoo's boost is |
| 4 |
> different from all others and no upstream default check seem to work |
| 5 |
> correctly with it, I'm questioning the usefulness of having it slotted. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Among other things, with each GCC/GLIBC update all but a handful of |
| 8 |
> slots are kept working; in this case I think most if not all <1.50 are |
| 9 |
> broken. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> So given that it's a PITA for the maintainers, a PITA for the users, |
| 12 |
> eselect boost has been shown to be a bad idea and so on ... can we just |
| 13 |
> go back to just install it and that's about it? |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
I agree. It really doesn't make sense to keep unbuildable stuff in the |
| 16 |
tree. The point of slotting it in the first place was also to force a |
| 17 |
rebuild of reverse dependencies to have them use newer boost (since at |
| 18 |
that time when boost slotting was introduced we had some API breakages |
| 19 |
occurring between versions). |
| 20 |
Now with the sub-slots we can simply use this feature to tell the PM to |
| 21 |
rebuild the stuff. |
| 22 |
I'll also put cpp as herd for it in metadata.xml. |
Archives