Luk Claes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jay Berkenbilt wrote: >> Domenico Andreoli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> Unfortunately I am having connectivity problems, I am changing DSL >>> provider and (almost) anybody in Italy knows how much painful is such >>> a change. >>> >>> Please take care of boost wrt ICU and any other important issue it >>> might have. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> Domenico >> >> If I have time before my vacation and no one from the debian boost >> team responds, I can NMU this. I would just take 1.34.1-3 (currently >> in experimental) and update the changelog and control as needed. I've >> done this locally and am building in pbuilder. >> >> I seem to recall an earlier discussion that the only reason 1.34.1-3 >> was uploaded to experimental instead of unstable was to avoid >> lengthening the boost 1.33 to 1.34 transition, so that's why I'd base >> the NMU off of 1.34.1-3 rather than 1.34.1-2. > > Well, you may recall correctly, though things have changed in the > meantime... There is not supposed to be an upload of boost that isn't > backwards compatible!
I hadn't looked carefully at the packages yet. Now that I am looking at it, I see clearly from the changelog that 1.34.1-3 was an ABI change, so you're right -- I definitely don't want to upload it. (Though I'm surprised that going from gcc 4.1 to 4.2 is really an ABI change.) >> I'm getting ready to go offline for three weeks myself, so it's not >> the best time to do an NMU, but this one is sufficiently trivial that >> it should be pretty safe. > > It's not as trivial as you seem to think, so please refrain from > uploading it. Point taken. I would feel the same way if someone were going to NMU tiff or ICU. In any case, I wouldn't have uploaded without testing carefully. I have software that uses some of the boost libraries. I would at least have locally installed boost and checked my software, openoffice, and perhaps some other reverse dependencies. My initial comments were based on my memory of earlier conversations, not a careful analysis. But you're right, this is not to be taken lightly. In any case, I can either do an NMU based on 1.34.1-2 (which really should be safe since 1.34.1-2 is already in testing), or I can just drop it and let someone else take care of it. Unless someone says to go ahead with 1.34.1-2.1, I'll just leave it alone. If it is not resolved by the time I'm back from vacation, I probably will upload 1.34.1-2.1 though. Given that this fixes a 10-day-old RC bug, anyone could do an NMU at this point anyway. --Jay -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
