On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 12:20:39PM +0200, Domenico Andreoli wrote: > I could make sush package but I need the point about the SVN repository. > Steve, I saw the transition of boost-jam to merge-upstream-mode, which > are your plans for boost?
I have also changed boost to merge-upstream-mode. I hope you're OK with that. Can I ask for a few more days to package 1.35.0? I think I'm nearing the end. I haven't committed everything yet because it isn't working. Boost has a very long change-compile-test cycle :-( My immediate goal is to produce a boost for upload to experimental, built the same way we have always done it. I prefer to get that out of the way before tweaking the package. I don't disagree with anything you say w.r.t. a separate boost package. Let's go down that route. Is the idea to version all the -dev packages and have them conflict? This allows you to choose one and only one boost version for development. But you can co-install different boost shared library versions. Or do you want to version the includes as well (e.g. /usr/include/boost-1_35) and aim for co-installable development packages? In this case, the boost version in the link library name becomes an asset rather than a burden, which is opposite to what I've been arguing recently [1]. :-) I have, by the way, succeeded in removing both the compiler version and boost version decorations from the library names in my local tree of 1.35.0. My struggle now is to get all the "expected" upstream link library names created for the packages. Thanks, -Steve [1] http://lists.boost.org/boost-build/2008/04/18835.php
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
