-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 30/10/12 04:00 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote: > On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 15:56:21 -0400 Ian Stakenvicius > <a...@gentoo.org> wrote: > >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 >> >> On 30/10/12 03:45 PM, Tomáš Chvátal wrote: >>> Dne Út 30. října 2012 20:24:26, Michał Górny napsal(a): >>>> On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 11:30:16 -0700 >>>> >>>> Diego Elio Pettenò <flamee...@flameeyes.eu> wrote: >> >>>> >>>>> So given that it's a PITA for the maintainers, a PITA for >>>>> the users, eselect boost has been shown to be a bad idea >>>>> and so on ... can we just go back to just install it and >>>>> that's about it? >>>> >>>> How are you going to solve the issue of a lot of packages >>>> being broken with new boost versions? Are you volunteering to >>>> keep fixing them with each release? >>> >>> Simple, as any other lib, depend on older version and possibly >>> port it forward. If that does not work then mask and wipe. Life >>> goes on. >>> >> >> If we un-slot boost there won't be an 'older' version available >> on users systems anymore; when the new boost hits ~arch and then >> stable, all ~arch / stable rdeps will -need- to build against >> that version of boost, period (or be lastrite'd as ssuominen >> suggested) .... unless i'm missing your meaning here? > > a sane pm wont try to upgrade to version 5 if <5 is required by > some package. > > +1 for unslotting >
..until something else ~arch (or stable) in the tree -needs- >=5 (and we only need one fairly common package for that to happen), and then it all falls apart with same-slot conflicts. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) iF4EAREIAAYFAlCQMnMACgkQ2ugaI38ACPAfSAD/d4PZXfXVhZRFaG+fVCa64vYn r7MbrM6QH/pwadKWDpYBAIfyeLGjroVxVwwOpmozkL6GBxLPTIgAMfMu9Fbe/zYw =f3Oe -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
