1 |
On 31/10/2012 11:49, Michał Górny wrote: |
2 |
> In other words, you have thrown a big, destructive change to live, |
3 |
> stable systems without prior testing (and don't say you were able to |
4 |
> test it thoroughly in one day's time) and you have left them for other |
5 |
> people to maintain and fix. |
6 |
> |
7 |
> I am really getting tired of those 'senior developers' who believe that |
8 |
> Gentoo is their private playground where they can do whatever comes |
9 |
> into their mind and ignore package maintainers. |
10 |
|
11 |
Given the kind of destructive behaviour that boost has been having, |
12 |
given that everybody else _beside you_ don't see any reason to keep that |
13 |
slotted boost, given that you've been acting for the most part as a |
14 |
sockpuppet for a developer who's been kicked out of Gentoo, I think it's |
15 |
obvious why I went the way I went. |
16 |
|
17 |
If this is "destructive", everything that has been done with boost up to |
18 |
this point is "apocalyptic". |
19 |
|
20 |
Here's the deal: I've stated clearly what the situation was going to be; |
21 |
Tiziano has been the primary maintainer (first in the list) and he's |
22 |
okay with the move, he _is_ in the cpp herd that will take care of it, |
23 |
and as I said I'll make sure to help out because I have a number of |
24 |
packages depending on boost (but not on other C++ libraries). |
25 |
|
26 |
You had a month while Mike delayed glibc-2.16 stable, among other things |
27 |
because of boost-1.50, and you did _squat_ to handle it. So it's time |
28 |
that people who've been there before step up and fix it the way that it |
29 |
has to be fixed. |
30 |
|
31 |
(And yes, I haven't tested it _thoroughly_ unfortunately, because of the |
32 |
stupid testsuite that goes nowhere and so on ... but I made sure that an |
33 |
update on a stable system does not change links to libraries and |
34 |
headers, and now I'm running tinderboxing for both ~arch, masked and |
35 |
stable.) |
36 |
|
37 |
-- |
38 |
Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes |
39 |
flameeyes@×××××××××.eu — http://blog.flameeyes.eu/ |