Steve M. Robbins wrote:
The only way that I could imagine breaking boost up (without playing
the neverending game of trying to determine a dependency tree that
the boost devs themselves do not understand) would be:
- headers
- one package per set of libs
Agreed. That's what the next Debian u
First of all: thank you, Leandro and Troy, for your interest in Boost
and enthusiasm at improving the Debian packaging of Boost.
On Mon, Nov 02, 2009 at 09:57:50PM -0500, troy d. straszheim wrote:
> Leandro Lucarella wrote:
> >I just did a search on closed bugs for this problem and I realized this
Leandro Lucarella wrote:
I'm glad you are trying to fix this from the root. I don't really see as
a big problem boost being monolith, I'm just worried about Debian broken
dependencies. It would be nice if it were modular though, so I appreciate
the effort, but I'm not that interested on working
troy d. straszheim, el 2 de noviembre a las 21:57 me escribiste:
> But there is an argument to be made that until boost itself knows
> what modularity means, one should just package boost-libs and
> boost-headers and be done with it. Boost is a monolith. It
> doesn't mean you've done poorly if
Leandro Lucarella wrote:
I just did a search on closed bugs for this problem and I realized this is
a *very* recurrent bug. Even when the Debian policy might accept the
current dependency scheme, I think it would be best to rethink how boost
is packaged to avoid this issues. Unfortunately the pac
I just did a search on closed bugs for this problem and I realized this is
a *very* recurrent bug. Even when the Debian policy might accept the
current dependency scheme, I think it would be best to rethink how boost
is packaged to avoid this issues. Unfortunately the packages separation
Debian cho
6 matches
Mail list logo
