Bug#682460: unblock: boost1.50/1.50.0-1

[Steve M. Robbins]

On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 04:34:31PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 20:26:36 -0500, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
> 
> > Yes, it's a judgement call, I'd agree.  My thinking is that (a) it's
> > already building on all architectures (low risk) and (b) has somewhat
> > better support for GCC 4.7 and (c) it's Boost :-)
> > 
> Could providing updated boost packages in wheezy-backports be a possible
> alternative?

Sure: it is a possible alternative.  To be honest, however: it's not
something that I will do.


Regards,
-Steve


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120806041718.ga2...@sumost.ca

Bug#682460: unblock: boost1.50/1.50.0-1

[Julien Cristau]

Hi Steve,

On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 20:26:36 -0500, Steve M. Robbins wrote:

> Yes, it's a judgement call, I'd agree.  My thinking is that (a) it's
> already building on all architectures (low risk) and (b) has somewhat
> better support for GCC 4.7 and (c) it's Boost :-)
> 
Could providing updated boost packages in wheezy-backports be a possible
alternative?

Cheers,
Julien


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Bug#682460: unblock: boost1.50/1.50.0-1

[Steve M. Robbins]

On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 11:04:13AM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Steve M. Robbins  (22/07/2012):
> > Given the long lifetime of stable Debian, I expect users would
> > appreciate having the latest Boost available.  This is a leaf package
> > so should have no impact on stability of the archive.
> > 
> > [Testing currently has Boost 1.49 as default and I propose to keep it
> > that way even if Boost 1.50 is also available.]
> > 
> > unblock boost1.50/1.50.0-1
> 
> I think it's way too late to add new packages to testing, and I'm not
> sure boost's being boost is a strong enough reason to make an exception
> for it.

Yes, it's a judgement call, I'd agree.  My thinking is that (a) it's
already building on all architectures (low risk) and (b) has somewhat
better support for GCC 4.7 and (c) it's Boost :-)

Anyway, I leave the decision to the Release Team.

Cheers,
-Steve


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Bug#682460: unblock: boost1.50/1.50.0-1

[Cyril Brulebois]

Hi,

Steve M. Robbins  (22/07/2012):
> Given the long lifetime of stable Debian, I expect users would
> appreciate having the latest Boost available.  This is a leaf package
> so should have no impact on stability of the archive.
> 
> [Testing currently has Boost 1.49 as default and I propose to keep it
> that way even if Boost 1.50 is also available.]
> 
> unblock boost1.50/1.50.0-1

I think it's way too late to add new packages to testing, and I'm not
sure boost's being boost is a strong enough reason to make an exception
for it.

Mraw,
KiBi.


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Bug#682460: unblock: boost1.50/1.50.0-1

[Steve M. Robbins]

Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: unblock

Please unblock package boost1.50

Given the long lifetime of stable Debian, I expect users would appreciate 
having the latest
Boost available.  This is a leaf package so should have no impact on stability 
of the
archive.

[Testing currently has Boost 1.49 as default and I propose to keep it that way
even if Boost 1.50 is also available.]

unblock boost1.50/1.50.0-1

-- System Information:
Debian Release: wheezy/sid
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Foreign Architectures: i386

Kernel: Linux 3.2.0-3-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120722233423.23285.14246.reportbug@localhost