| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA256 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On 01/11/12 10:10 AM, Georg Rudoy wrote: |
| 5 |
> 2012/11/1 Jamie Learmonth <jamie-lists@×××××××××××××.com>: |
| 6 |
>> Firstly, why are you guys always so mad, and secondly why don't |
| 7 |
>> we just start packaging more of these packages as binaries then |
| 8 |
>> or bundling the needed version like the rest of the world does |
| 9 |
>> anyways? |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> So are you suggesting to package all the binaries that depend upon |
| 12 |
> too old boost, or upon too new boost, or whatever, as binaries? |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> I always thought those few -bin packages are -bin just because |
| 15 |
> they take quite a lot time to be compiled. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
They are. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
This idea wouldn't work tho -- providing the old boost as binaries |
| 21 |
isn't actually going to help things, unless they are fully static, as |
| 22 |
it's the breakage against the toolchain that invalidates them |
| 23 |
(otherwise it wouldn't be an issue to leave 'em in the tree and for |
| 24 |
that matter leave boost slotted and have all rdeps just depend on the |
| 25 |
slot they were written for). And fully static binary packages are |
| 26 |
just plain wrong on any number of levels for something like this imo. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 29 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
iF4EAREIAAYFAlCSixYACgkQ2ugaI38ACPB72AD9EUYVEovDTDkHBmURJ3XGWt7Z |
| 32 |
EdPNP7F5k46lZAM6LscA/0rO3wjaVfBZDwKi88kX6NL3nWEUgpDxmNASrN42xs+O |
| 33 |
=KC5a |
| 34 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives