On Fri, Jan 06, 2012 at 10:43:14AM +0100, Tobias Frost wrote:
Am Dienstag, den 03.01.2012, 22:28 -0600 schrieb Steve M. Robbins:
True. You can either:
(a) depend on libboost1.48-dev, then update when 1.49 comes out; or
(b) depend on libboost-dev, implicitly promising compatibility
Am Dienstag, den 03.01.2012, 22:28 -0600 schrieb Steve M. Robbins:
True. You can either:
(a) depend on libboost1.48-dev, then update when 1.49 comes out; or
(b) depend on libboost-dev, implicitly promising compatibility with
all versions of boost, past and present
a) is ugly
On Sun, Jan 01, 2012 at 03:42:40PM +0100, Tobias Frost wrote:
Hallo,
Isn't it the usualy procedure to file a RC bug to prevent transistion to
testing?
Yes, that's correct. In the case of the recent boost-defaults
issue, it was a problem in unstable itself. So I had to revert it.
The
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
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
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
6 matches
Mail list logo
