On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 11:21:40AM +0100, Thomas Viehmann wrote: > On 2008-12-11 10:20:26.00 Steve M. Robbins <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 09:38:47AM +0100, Thomas Viehmann wrote: > > > On 2008-12-11 09:14:23.00 Steve M. Robbins <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hey, no fair! > > > > > > > The deal was that boost1.37 be accepted into the archive before > > > > removing 1.36. With this removal we have gone from being 4 months out > > > > of date (Boost 1.36 was released in August) to 8 months out of date > > > > (Boost 1.35 released end of March). > > > > > > No, sorry. If you want to be able to deliver the greatest boost of the > > > day, teach them about API stability. > > > > That's an old debate. You're welcome to engage with the Boost folks > > yourself. I believe they know about the issue but it's not the > > biggest priority for Boost. > > > > My role is to try to ensure that Debian keeps up with Boost. > > Yes. I understand that it's not your choice, but this is a > misalignment with the requirements of Debian and there is a limit on > how much Debian can adapt to this.
I appreciate your opinion. In the opinion of the Debian Boost packagers, we have adapted adequately to the competing demands of keeping Boost up-to-date with not breaking all the Boost-using packages with every update. > I do not think that keeping > (time() - release-date-of-newest-boost-in-unstable) is the only > argument here, boost is not a newspaper. Certainly it's not the only argument. In addition to that, we've got people emailing constantly asking for Boost 1.37. > Based on the discussion between you and Joerg and an explicit ACK by > Joerg on IRC, I pulled the old version now. Joerg quite explicitly > said that boost 1.36 would go now while the removal of boost 1.35 > should be tagged moreinfo. Between there and the filing of the bugs > this seems to have changed to delay both removals, Correct. I double-checked the build-dependencies and noticed there is one package (openturns) build-depending on boost1.36. I wrote this right into the bug so as to avoid confusion. Perhaps I could have been more clear. Joerg missed this originally and suggested immediate removal on the assumption that no Debian packages use it. > Mind you, we are having this discussion over the day or two between > the removal of boost 1.36 and acceptance of 1.37, Thank you. I look forward to having Boost 1.37 processed in a day or two. Regards, -Steve
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
