Bug#904316: transition: boost-defaults

2018-09-23 Thread Steve Robbins
On Sunday, September 23, 2018 2:59:10 AM CDT Giovanni Mascellani wrote: > I would suggest to avoid too much speculation on this point: uploading a > new release to unstable is alone rather time consuming, because (beside > the technical challenges of correctly installing dozens of binary > package

Re: Uploaded Boost 1.63 -- to be included in upcoming release

2016-12-31 Thread Steve Robbins
On Saturday, December 31, 2016 8:58:38 PM CST intrigeri wrote: > My understanding of what the release team explained [1] is that > January 5 is the deadline for "New (source) packages in stretch", and > "New packages must be in testing before January 5th". So I think we're > already past the dead

Uploaded Boost 1.63 -- to be included in upcoming release

2016-12-31 Thread Steve Robbins
Hi, Just a heads-up for the release and ftp-masters: I have uploaded Boost 1.63 and it is currently awaiting processing in the NEW queue. It is very close to the deadline for accepting new packages, so I thought I should outline my rationale for this upload. We already have Boost 1.62 in test

Bug#755539: Elastix needs binnmu after ITK

2014-09-03 Thread Steve Robbins
On September 3, 2014 5:44:22 AM CDT, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: >On 02/09/14 07:23, Steve M. Robbins wrote: >> The recent build failure of elastix (#759945) is caused by the >> libhdf5.so path having changed, presumably due to #755539. The path >> is encoded into insighttoolkit4-dev's file