on 06/03/2009 23:47 Alexander Churanov said the following: > Hi guys! > I am Alexander Churanov, currently maintaining devel/boost (for > several weeks :-). > > Yes, leaving 1.34 would be awful and nobody is going to do that! > For current status, current efforts and decisions see > http://wiki.freebsd.org/BoostPortingProject.
Alexander, I agree with the "better" approach, but why wait for months until all deadlines are passed if we can create boost 1.38 port right now and then shuffle ports around later. I think that happened quite a few times in the past. > My comments on the suggested solution: > The goal is to have most recent boost by default in devel/boost. Of > course, it is possible to provide 1.38 in some separate location. > However, this would make ports look like we stuck to 1.34 forever and Well, about this argument - I'd prefer something objective over something subjective any time, and how things "appear" is very subjective. > provide recent boost libraries for hackers. > > The better approach is to provide 1.34 in a separate location and > modify all ports that depend on old boost to use that location. The > hard part of it is "modify all ports". It's not obvious for me what's > easier: to modify all ports (source code) to work with 1.38 or to > modify all ports (build files) to look for 1.34 in some special place. > > Having multiple versions of the same ports installed at the same time > is nice idea, it needs more time to think and experiment with. For > instance, I'd like to examine how Gentoo does that and learn their's > procs and cons. I'd be glad to see FreeBSD capable of doing that for > any arbitrary port. It seems we have some very good examples like openldap ports. -- Andriy Gapon _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
