Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: "Diego Elio Pettenò" <flameeyes@×××××××××.eu>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-libs/boost: boost-1.46.1-r1.ebuild metadata.xml boost-1.49.0-r1.ebuild boost-1.51.0-r1.ebuild ChangeLog boost-1.47.0.ebuild boost-1.35.0-r2.ebuild boost-1.47.0-r1.ebuild boost-1.39.0.ebuild boost-1.50.0-r2.ebuild boost-1.42.0-r1.ebuild boost-1.51.0.ebuild boost-1.37.0-r1.ebuild boost-1.42.0-r2.ebuild boost-1.50.0.ebuild boost-1.48.0-r2.ebuild boost-1.42.0.ebuild boost-1.35.0-r5.ebuild boost-1.41.0-r3.ebuild boost-1.45.0.ebuild
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 18:59:24
Message-Id: 509174C8.3090408@flameeyes.eu
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-libs/boost: boost-1.46.1-r1.ebuild metadata.xml boost-1.49.0-r1.ebuild boost-1.51.0-r1.ebuild ChangeLog boost-1.47.0.ebuild boost-1.35.0-r2.ebuild boost-1.47.0-r1.ebuild boost-1.39.0.ebuild boost-1.50.0-r2.ebuild boost-1.42.0-r1.ebuild boost-1.51.0.ebuild boost-1.37.0-r1.ebuild boost-1.42.0-r2.ebuild boost-1.50.0.ebuild boost-1.48.0-r2.ebuild boost-1.42.0.ebuild boost-1.35.0-r5.ebuild boost-1.41.0-r3.ebuild boost-1.45.0.ebuild by "Michał Górny"
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/

Replies