+ Steve M. Robbins (Sun, 24 May 2009 22:41:31 -0500):
Hi,
Hello!
On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 01:35:24PM +0200, Adeodato Sim?? wrote:
+ Steve M. Robbins (Fri, 22 May 2009 00:37:15 -0500):
* a mass bug filing for packages build-depending on versioned packages
to build-depend on the
Hi,
On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 01:35:24PM +0200, Adeodato Sim?? wrote:
+ Steve M. Robbins (Fri, 22 May 2009 00:37:15 -0500):
* a mass bug filing for packages build-depending on versioned packages
to build-depend on the un-versioned ones instead
Not yet done.
Okay; there're 11 of
+ Steve M. Robbins (Fri, 22 May 2009 00:37:15 -0500):
Hello again, Adeodato,
Hello!
* a mass bug filing for packages build-depending on versioned packages
to build-depend on the un-versioned ones instead
Not yet done.
Okay; there're 11 of such packages AFAICS. I hope you'll be
Hello again, Adeodato,
I'm interested in removing some older Boost packages from the
archive, specifically 1.34.1 (source package boost).
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 09:13:34PM +0100, Adeodato Sim?? wrote:
Clearly, the strategies will depend on how much breakage is
encountered in a typical
+ Steve M. Robbins (Sun, 10 May 2009 22:15:38 -0500):
On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 12:21:10PM +0200, Adeodato Sim?? wrote:
Could you prepare a mail to d-d-a, [ ... ]
Sure. I'll work on it presently.
Seen, thanks you!
boost1.38 managed to get built on mips in the second try after I gave it
+ Steve M. Robbins (Sat, 09 May 2009 09:55:15 -0500):
On Sat, May 09, 2009 at 12:09:17PM +0200, Adeodato Sim?? wrote:
+ Adeodato Sim?? (Mon, 04 May 2009 18:18:46 +0200):
Okay, please make a second upload of boost-defaults already (it's okay
to upload multiple versions to NEW),
On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 12:21:10PM +0200, Adeodato Sim?? wrote:
Could you prepare a mail to d-d-a, [ ... ]
Sure. I'll work on it presently.
-Steve
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
+ Adeodato Simó (Mon, 04 May 2009 18:18:46 +0200):
Okay, please make a second upload of boost-defaults already (it's okay
to upload multiple versions to NEW), particularly because of the second
issue you mention (the packages not being arch:any).
I've started seeing some FTBFSes because of
On Sat, May 09, 2009 at 12:09:17PM +0200, Adeodato Sim?? wrote:
+ Adeodato Sim?? (Mon, 04 May 2009 18:18:46 +0200):
Okay, please make a second upload of boost-defaults already (it's okay
to upload multiple versions to NEW), particularly because of the second
issue you mention (the
On Sat, May 09, 2009 at 12:09:17PM +0200, Adeodato Sim?? wrote:
+ Adeodato Sim?? (Mon, 04 May 2009 18:18:46 +0200):
Okay, please make a second upload of boost-defaults already (it's okay
to upload multiple versions to NEW), particularly because of the second
issue you mention (the
+ Steve M. Robbins (Sun, 03 May 2009 00:44:42 -0500):
I see you've uploaded boost-defaults already. In your previous mail, you
asked whether it was okay to upload already, or if we needed to wait
until the latest boost1.38 would migrate to testing.
Um, yeah ... I was a bit impatient and
+ Steve M. Robbins (Thu, 30 Apr 2009 09:28:12 -0500):
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 11:10:41PM +0200, Adeodato Simó wrote:
Let's make the unversioned development packages arch:any, and
build-depend on libboost1.38-dev. That way, even if the intent is to
only bump the major version when eg.
Hi Adeodato,
Thanks for the arch:any explanation; that makes sense.
On Sat, May 02, 2009 at 08:37:22PM +0200, Adeodato Sim?? wrote:
I see you've uploaded boost-defaults already. In your previous mail, you
asked whether it was okay to upload already, or if we needed to wait
until the latest
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 11:10:41PM +0200, Adeodato Sim?? wrote:
Basically all it has is a control file with unversioned -dev packages
that depend on the corresponding 1.38-dev package. I'd appreciate it
if you would give it a glance and see whether I've missed something.
Let's make the
+ Steve M. Robbins (Fri, 24 Apr 2009 00:29:04 -0500):
Hello release team,
Hello,
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 09:13:34PM +0100, Adeodato Sim?? wrote:
Once boost1.38 is built in all architectures and migrated to
testing, we can proceed with the boost-defaults plans, see below
about this.
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 12:29:04AM -0500, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
P.S. After boost-defaults is uploaded, the archive will have two
source packages (boost, boost-defaults) that both produce the
binary package libboost-dev. Won't that cause a problem? Does
something need to be adjusted to
Hello release team,
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 09:13:34PM +0100, Adeodato Sim?? wrote:
Once boost1.38 is built in all architectures and migrated to
testing, we can proceed with the boost-defaults plans, see below
about this.
OK, boost1.38 is built and in testing, so I'm preparing boost-defaults
* Steve M. Robbins [Sat, 21 Mar 2009 18:00:44 -0500]:
If there's something for us Boost packagers to do in order
that Boost 1.38 be accepted into Debian, I'd really like to
know about it.
You can upload the ???boost1.38??? source package any time you want (which I
guess will be as
Hi Adeodato,
Thanks for the prompt response! ;-)
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 09:13:34PM +0100, Adeodato Sim?? wrote:
If there's something for us Boost packagers to do in order
that Boost 1.38 be accepted into Debian, I'd really like to
know about it.
You can upload the ???boost1.38???
Hi again,
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 12:29:51AM -0500, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
Hello Adeodato et al.,
I realize the release team is one of the busiest in Debian, but I was
hoping not to have to wait another 2 weeks for a response. Carrying a
conversation at that speed is quite dispiriting. :-)
Hey...
First things first:
I realize the release team is one of the busiest in Debian, but I was
hoping not to have to wait another 2 weeks for a response. Carrying a
conversation at that speed is quite dispiriting. :-)
Yes, I realize that, and I’m verry sorry about it. I’m expecting
hi,
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 12:29:51AM -0500, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
As to the question of who will do the porting work, I'll be frank: it
won't be me. I'll help out where I can, but I have a limited time for
Debian each week and am already overstretched. I won't speak for the
rest of
* Steve M. Robbins [Sun, 22 Feb 2009 21:25:39 -0600]:
Hi,
Hello, Steve, sorry for the very late reply.
In principle, I think having two boost versions in the archive is
reasonable, particularly if the API is known to change often and porting
to a new boost version is a significant effort that
On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 09:31:39PM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
* Steve M. Robbins [Sun, 22 Feb 2009 21:25:39 -0600]:
I have a couple concerns with your proposal, though. Let me start the
first of these with a question: given a new version of boost, eg. 1.38,
how likely is it that a package
Hello Adeodato et al.,
On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 09:31:39PM +0100, Adeodato Sim?? wrote:
I have a couple concerns with your proposal, though. Let me start the
first of these with a question: given a new version of boost, eg. 1.38,
how likely is it that a package will rebuild just fine against
Hi,
I just got Boost 1.38 uploaded today. I imagine the fact that it is a
new source package may raise some questions, chief among them: why so
many versions of boost in the archive?
The answer is that we *don't* want legions of boost versions kicking
around, thus removal will be requested for
26 matches
Mail list logo
