| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA256 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On 30/10/12 02:30 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: |
| 5 |
> Given the amount of headaches that Boost seems to give us all, now |
| 6 |
> thanks to the recent changes even more because Gentoo's boost is |
| 7 |
> different from all others and no upstream default check seem to |
| 8 |
> work correctly with it, I'm questioning the usefulness of having it |
| 9 |
> slotted. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Among other things, with each GCC/GLIBC update all but a handful |
| 12 |
> of slots are kept working; in this case I think most if not all |
| 13 |
> <1.50 are broken. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> So given that it's a PITA for the maintainers, a PITA for the |
| 16 |
> users, eselect boost has been shown to be a bad idea and so on ... |
| 17 |
> can we just go back to just install it and that's about it? |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> Thanks, |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
As log as: |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
#1 - the MAX_BOOST_VERSION thing isn't needed anymore (and i get the |
| 24 |
impression that it actually is, but putting that aside since i don't |
| 25 |
maintain any packages that depend on boost), and |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
#2 - anything requiring boost gets bumped to EAPI5 to get the |
| 28 |
slot-operator benefits for rebuilds, |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
..seems to make sense to me also. |
| 31 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 32 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
iF4EAREIAAYFAlCQMtYACgkQ2ugaI38ACPANHgEAkEFD/m87xg3KY6pzazUSqmZT |
| 35 |
MWxLJDgC1sy8GlYeEzUA/iIdCu0pPOC90FUMSXP2tjCgZeiGu/OmjM0iJa4rtPUi |
| 36 |
=FgJE |
| 37 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives