On 31/10/12 03:03, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
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_ ins
Diego Elio Pettenò posted on Tue, 30 Oct 2012 17:45:27 -0700 as excerpted:
> On 30/10/2012 17:42, Duncan wrote:
>>
>> icu-49.1.2 seems to build just fine against glibc-2.16.0, here. I just
>> rebuilt to be sure. (With gcc-4.7.2.)
>
> I said "1.50+", I'm referring to Boost.
Thanks. Makes MUCH
Okay let's see a moment what's going on with the slotted boost.
www-plugins/gnash has a blocker on the old unslotted boost because it
doesn't really support multiple boost that well, like most other packages.
sci-biology/cufflinks and sci-biology/express are next to completely
screwed because the
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
On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 19:34:02 -0400
James Cloos wrote:
> > "DEP" == Diego Elio Pettenò writes:
>
> DEP> Among other things, with each GCC/GLIBC update all but a handful of
> DEP> slots are kept working; in this case I think most if not all <1.50
> DEP> are broken.
>
> One datapoint:
>
> Si
On 30/10/2012 17:42, Duncan wrote:
>
> icu-49.1.2 seems to build just fine against glibc-2.16.0, here. I just
> rebuilt to be sure. (With gcc-4.7.2.)
I said "1.50+", I'm referring to Boost.
--
Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes
flamee...@flameeyes.eu — http://blog.flameeyes.eu/
Diego Elio Pettenò posted on Tue, 30 Oct 2012 16:41:40 -0700 as excerpted:
> On 30/10/2012 16:34, James Cloos wrote:
>> Since protage failed to preserve icu-49 for me, upon which boost
>> depends, I found that 1.48 and 1.49 build with gcc 4.7.2; but none of
>> the earlier versions did.
>
> And on
On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 13:45:38 -0700
Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> Besides, honestly it's not that bad. I think that half the headache that
> we're having is due to the slotting more than from boost itself. And the
> other half is due to people actually not going to fix their crap because
> "oh I can
