Bug#653228: [pkg-boost-devel] Bug#653228: boost-defaults: libboost-*-dev 1.48.0.2 depend on libboost-*1.46-dev
Hello Thomas, On Sun, Dec 25, 2011 at 05:59:56PM +0100, Thomas Krennwallner wrote: Source: boost-defaults Severity: important Hi! When I try to install, e.g., libboost-filesystem-dev 1.48.0.2, the dependencies forces to install libboost-filesystem1.46-dev. See also the control file of boost-defaults: I don't believe there is a bug here. What happened is that 1. I released boost defaults version 1.48.0.1 that changed the default to Boost 1.48.0. 2. It turns out this is too soon as there are packages that fail to build with Boost 1.48. 3. I released boost defaults version 1.48.0.2 that reverted the default back to 1.46.1. I see now that versioning the boost-defaults according to the boost version is a mistake, but for the moment, that's what we're stuck with. So it is weird and surprising that the current default is 1.46.1, but that's what it is. If you still feel there is a bug, please reply with more details. Otherwise, please email 653228-d...@bugs.debian.org to close this bug. Thanks, -Steve signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#653228: [pkg-boost-devel] Bug#653228: boost-defaults: libboost-*-dev 1.48.0.2 depend on libboost-*1.46-dev
Hi Steve, On Sun Dec 25, 2011 03:58:23PM -0600, Steve M. Robbins wrote: Hello Thomas, On Sun, Dec 25, 2011 at 05:59:56PM +0100, Thomas Krennwallner wrote: Source: boost-defaults Severity: important Hi! When I try to install, e.g., libboost-filesystem-dev 1.48.0.2, the dependencies forces to install libboost-filesystem1.46-dev. See also the control file of boost-defaults: I don't believe there is a bug here. What happened is that 1. I released boost defaults version 1.48.0.1 that changed the default to Boost 1.48.0. 2. It turns out this is too soon as there are packages that fail to build with Boost 1.48. 3. I released boost defaults version 1.48.0.2 that reverted the default back to 1.46.1. I see now that versioning the boost-defaults according to the boost version is a mistake, but for the moment, that's what we're stuck with. So it is weird and surprising that the current default is 1.46.1, but that's what it is. If you still feel there is a bug, please reply with more details. Otherwise, please email 653228-d...@bugs.debian.org to close this bug. I see now, but then we have a problem. The semantics of libboost-*-dev have always been, at least this was my understanding, to depend on the latest stable version of boost. If one needs a particular (older) version of boost, then we have the versioned packages libboost-*N.MM-dev. If a particular package FTBFS with the newest version of boost, then it's a bug of that package. Which can be easily fixed by using Build-Depends: libboost-*N.MM-dev and a re-upload. Then, there is enough time to fix the package by investigating what's wrong in the first place with the latest stable version. In a sense, it's a good thing that boost-defaults depends on the newest version, otw. people don't realize that boost breaks their package and won't fix their package early in time. This was actually what I did when I run into the problem: I fixed my package and then setup Build-Depends with libboost-*1.48-dev instead of libboost-*-dev. The question is now, how shall we proceed? 1. If you think that libboost-*-dev should depend on /the currently most stable version of boost (wrt. the debian package archive)/, then there is nothing to do and we can close this bug. 2. But if you feel that libboost-*-dev should depend on /the latest stable version of boost/, then I have the impression that we should force people to fix their package to depend on libboost-*N.MM-dev, as this is what they then depend on in reality. Because changing boost-defaults later in time (weeks, months?) to depend on the new boost release will break those packages eventually. I would opt for (2), as packages will only FTBFS with this change, it won't break compiled packages, as they depend on the linked versioned shared libraries. But that's just my 2 cents. Best, TK -- Thomas Krennwallner University assistant . TU Wien - Vienna University of Technology Institute of Information Systems Favoritenstrasse 9-11, 1040 Wien, Austria . T: +43 1 58801 18469 F: +43 1 58801 918469 tkren AT kr DOT tuwien DOT ac DOT at http://www.kr.tuwien.ac.at/staff/tkren/ . DVR: 0005886 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#653228: [pkg-boost-devel] Bug#653228: boost-defaults: libboost-*-dev 1.48.0.2 depend on libboost-*1.46-dev
On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 05:57:58AM +0100, Thomas Krennwallner wrote: I see now, but then we have a problem. The semantics of libboost-*-dev have always been, at least this was my understanding, to depend on the latest stable version of boost. Yes, that's the basic purpose of the defaults. In the previous email, I should have made it clear that reverting to the older boost is a temporary measure. Once the build failures are taken care of -- or are at least at a manageable level -- the default will be moved forward again. The question is now, how shall we proceed? 1. If you think that libboost-*-dev should depend on /the currently most stable version of boost (wrt. the debian package archive)/, then there is nothing to do and we can close this bug. 2. But if you feel that libboost-*-dev should depend on /the latest stable version of boost/, then I have the impression that we should force people to fix their package to depend on libboost-*N.MM-dev, as this is what they then depend on in reality. Because changing boost-defaults later in time (weeks, months?) to depend on the new boost release will break those packages eventually. I would opt for (2), as packages will only FTBFS with this change, it won't break compiled packages, as they depend on the linked versioned shared libraries. But that's just my 2 cents. I think option 2 is the right viewpoint. It's mainly a question of timing and coordination. The Release Team objects when a package transition such as this makes a bunch of unrelated packages fail to build. At their request [1], I temporarily backed up the default. The next steps are to test build the prominant reverse-deps, file appropriate bugs, and coordinate the boost defaults change. I could sure use some help with this task!! [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2011/12/msg00263.html Thanks for your interest in Boost, -Steve signature.asc Description: Digital signature
