| 1 |
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 3:24 PM, Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 11:30:16 -0700 |
| 4 |
> Diego Elio Pettenò <flameeyes@×××××××××.eu> wrote: |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> > Given the amount of headaches that Boost seems to give us all, now |
| 7 |
> > thanks to the recent changes even more because Gentoo's boost is |
| 8 |
> > different from all others and no upstream default check seem to work |
| 9 |
> > correctly with it, I'm questioning the usefulness of having it slotted. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Could you elaborate on that? I don't remember having problems with |
| 12 |
> boost.m4 or cmake's default checks unless I'm missing something which |
| 13 |
> is obvious to you. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> > So given that it's a PITA for the maintainers, a PITA for the users, |
| 16 |
> > eselect boost has been shown to be a bad idea and so on ... can we just |
| 17 |
> > go back to just install it and that's about it? |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> How are you going to solve the issue of a lot of packages being broken |
| 20 |
> with new boost versions? Are you volunteering to keep fixing them with |
| 21 |
> each release? |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
It's worth noting that Boost themselves recommend developers inline the |
| 25 |
code they want to use. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
I've never understood why Gentoo uses a separate ebuild for it. I mean, I |
| 28 |
can understand some efficiency gains from having a single compiled copy, |
| 29 |
but it shouldn't be surprising in the least when upstream makes breaking |
| 30 |
changes in the API. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
:wq |
Archives