Hi!
On Tue Dec 27, 2011 10:42:07AM +0100, Rene Engelhard wrote:
> > I'd like to point out that any resulting build failures are quite easy
> > to fix: either
> > (a) contact package upstream for boost 1.48 changes; or
>
> It is? #652681 doesn't look like it.
> Will 1.46 be around long enough that reverting to 1.46 is an option there?
> The wheezy release should be with 3.5.0..
As long as something depends on 1.46, I assume that it should be
around. The current situation is sub-optimal, because almost everything
depends on the non-versioned boost libs of boost-defaults, despite
boost's tendency to break packages when switching to a new version.
The question is, which strategy is better?
(1) Clearly record the dependencies in packages that depend on boost,
i.e., Build-Depends on libboost-foo1.46-dev instead of
libboost-foo-dev, or
(2) let boost-defaults decide which version of boost is the currently
stable boost.
IMHO (2) just hides FTBSes of the packages.
Cheers,
TK
--
Thomas Krennwallner
University assistant
.
TU Wien - Vienna University of Technology
Institute of Information Systems
Favoritenstrasse 9-11, 1040 Wien, Austria
.
T: +43 1 58801 18469 F: +43 1 58801 918469
tkren AT kr DOT tuwien DOT ac DOT at
http://www.kr.tuwien.ac.at/staff/tkren/
.
DVR: 0005886
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20111227102814.ga15...@kr.tuwien.ac.at
