at bottom :-
On 02/11/2018, Dimitri John Ledkov <x...@debian.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Jul 2018 10:26:34 +0100 Dimitri John Ledkov <x...@ubuntu.com>
> wrote:
>> Package: release.debian.org
>> Severity: normal
>> User: release.debian....@packages.debian.org
>> Usertags: transition
>>
>
> This transition was ready to be started for just over three months now.
>
> May I upload boost-defaults to start the transition to boost1.67?
>
> I believe I have answered all requests so far. There is no explicit
> need or requirement to move all packages to boost1.67, if any packages
> are not fixed to work with boost-default pointing at boost1.67 they
> can revert to boost1.62, as both boost1.62 and boost1.67 are
> co-installable. Multiple releases in the past shipped multiple boost
> at the same time, thus this is not an unsual situation. Or can anyone
> from the release team explain what is the hold up here? Most packages
> are NMUable for this transition, some need patches uploading which do
> exist for the vast majority of affected packages, and there are no
> obviously broken sets of packages which would be caused by this
> transition (i.e. simultaneously trying to link or dlopen two
> incompatible boosts for example).
>
> If there is still anything unresolved, please let me know.
>
> Boost team is concerned about shipping boost-defaults pointing at 1.62
> in the upcoming release. We are comfortable with shipping boost 1.67
> as default, and only some minority of packages using boost1.62.
>
> Regards,
>
> Dimitri, on behalf of the Boost packaging team.
>
>
While the decision-makers are obviously ftp-masters as a user I would
be interested
to see boost-defaults make to 1.67 in Debian.
--
Regards,
Shirish Agarwal शिरीष अग्रवाल
My quotes in this email licensed under CC 3.0
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/
http://flossexperiences.wordpress.com
EB80 462B 08E1 A0DE A73A 2C2F 9F3D C7A4 E1C4 D2D8
