On 30/10/2012 17:49, Ryan Hill wrote: > And I had to argue to get 1.48 fixed. I'm not sure why we have to keep so > many unbuildable versions in the tree.
Because as mgorny explained earlier he's expecting some fairy to make it possible to _always_ install an older boost just because it's slotted. Honestly, from what I can tell, Mike is doing, exactly like for ICU, a direct proxying of commits from a developer that has been explicitly kicked out by Gentoo, mgorny is in some fantasyland where the presence of an ebuild makes it possible to build it just because it's slotted (and his only commit is to add himself to metadata), Tiziano has been last seen dropping eselect boost in favour of ... nothing, and Sebastian Luther I have no word of in a long time. I'm pretty sure that if the package was moved to cpp, or toolchain, or whatever, is going to be better maintained by whatever is going on now even if it's just going to be re-active instead of pro-active. In the list of bugs for boost, most of the recently RESOLVED ones are NOT related to boost itself, but to the reverse dependencies — lots of them also seem to be due to >=boost-1.50-r2 which is without eselect boost. Of the open ones, I'm pretty sure that a lot of them are obsolete such as bug #334659 "dev-libs/boost is built as non-PIC on amd64", plus we got a number of trackers, ICEs, stabilization bugs still open, and so on so forth. I have unfortunately a few packages using it; so does Tomáš — KDE and MySQL depend on it as well. Is there somebody else interested in the package? We might just want to take this over and restore some sanity. -- Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes flamee...@flameeyes.eu — http://blog.flameeyes.eu/
