Am Dienstag, den 30.10.2012, 22:48 -0700 schrieb Diego Elio Pettenò:
On 30/10/2012 22:44, Tiziano Müller wrote:
I agree. It really doesn't make sense to keep unbuildable stuff in the
tree. The point of slotting it in the first place was also to force a
rebuild of reverse dependencies to
Given the amount of headaches that Boost seems to give us all, now
thanks to the recent changes even more because Gentoo's boost is
different from all others and no upstream default check seem to work
correctly with it, I'm questioning the usefulness of having it slotted.
Among other things, with
On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 11:30:16 -0700
Diego Elio Pettenò flamee...@flameeyes.eu wrote:
Given the amount of headaches that Boost seems to give us all, now
thanks to the recent changes even more because Gentoo's boost is
different from all others and no upstream default check seem to work
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 3:24 PM, Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 11:30:16 -0700
Diego Elio Pettenò flamee...@flameeyes.eu wrote:
Given the amount of headaches that Boost seems to give us all, now
thanks to the recent changes even more because Gentoo's boost is
On 30/10/2012 12:24, Michał Górny wrote:
How are you going to solve the issue of a lot of packages being broken
with new boost versions? Are you volunteering to keep fixing them with
each release?
How are you going to solve the problem that the packages that are not
fixed to work with a new
On 30/10/12 21:24, Michał Górny wrote:
On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 11:30:16 -0700
So given that it's a PITA for the maintainers, a PITA for the users,
eselect boost has been shown to be a bad idea and so on ... can we just
go back to just install it and that's about it?
How are you going to solve the
Dne Út 30. října 2012 20:24:26, Michał Górny napsal(a):
On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 11:30:16 -0700
Diego Elio Pettenò flamee...@flameeyes.eu wrote:
Given the amount of headaches that Boost seems to give us all, now
thanks to the recent changes even more because Gentoo's boost is
different from
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 30/10/12 03:45 PM, Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
Dne Út 30. října 2012 20:24:26, Michał Górny napsal(a):
On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 11:30:16 -0700
Diego Elio Pettenò flamee...@flameeyes.eu wrote:
So given that it's a PITA for the maintainers, a PITA for
On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 15:56:21 -0400
Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 30/10/12 03:45 PM, Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
Dne Út 30. října 2012 20:24:26, Michał Górny napsal(a):
On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 11:30:16 -0700
Diego Elio Pettenò
On 30/10/12 22:02, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 30/10/12 04:00 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 15:56:21 -0400 Ian Stakenvicius
a...@gentoo.org wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256
On 30/10/12 03:45 PM, Tomáš
On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 12:32:57 -0700
Diego Elio Pettenò flamee...@flameeyes.eu wrote:
On 30/10/2012 12:24, Michał Górny wrote:
How are you going to solve the issue of a lot of packages being broken
with new boost versions? Are you volunteering to keep fixing them with
each release?
How
On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 16:02:59 -0400
Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 30/10/12 04:00 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 15:56:21 -0400 Ian Stakenvicius
a...@gentoo.org wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash:
On 30/10/2012 12:31, Michael Mol wrote:
I've never understood why Gentoo uses a separate ebuild for it. I mean,
I can understand some efficiency gains from having a single compiled
copy, but it shouldn't be surprising in the least when upstream makes
breaking changes in the API.
Because
On 30/10/2012 13:04, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
#1 - the MAX_BOOST_VERSION thing isn't needed anymore (and i get the
impression that it actually is, but putting that aside since i don't
maintain any packages that depend on boost), and
It'll just behave like _every other library_ we have in the
On 30/10/2012 13:10, Michał Górny wrote:
By inheriting boost-utils and using the correct function to use older
boost slot?
Which will not work.
Can you build boost-1.49 with glibc-2.16? NO! At least not without
patching it by changing its API.
So how do you propose to solve package A that
On 30/10/2012 13:39, Michael Mol wrote:
In general, I agree...but Boost wasn't intended to be a shared library,
so there shouldn't be a conflict there.
But there are shared libraries, and they are not small either. And I'd
rather, say, hunt an RWX section problem (a security problem) with a
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 4:45 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò
flamee...@flameeyes.euwrote:
On 30/10/2012 13:39, Michael Mol wrote:
In general, I agree...but Boost wasn't intended to be a shared library,
so there shouldn't be a conflict there.
But there are shared libraries, and they are not small
On 30/10/12 22:49, Michael Mol wrote:
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 4:45 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò
flamee...@flameeyes.eu mailto:flamee...@flameeyes.eu wrote:
On 30/10/2012 13:39, Michael Mol wrote:
In general, I agree...but Boost wasn't intended to be a shared
library,
so there
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 4:59 PM, Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 30/10/12 22:49, Michael Mol wrote:
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 4:45 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò
flamee...@flameeyes.eu mailto:flamee...@flameeyes.eu wrote:
On 30/10/2012 13:39, Michael Mol wrote:
In general, I
DEP == Diego Elio Pettenò flamee...@flameeyes.eu writes:
DEP Among other things, with each GCC/GLIBC update all but a handful of
DEP slots are kept working; in this case I think most if not all 1.50
DEP are broken.
One datapoint:
Since protage failed to preserve icu-49 for me, upon which boost
On 30/10/2012 16:34, James Cloos wrote:
Since protage failed to preserve icu-49 for me, upon which boost
depends, I found that 1.48 and 1.49 build with gcc 4.7.2; but none
of the earlier versions did.
And only 1.50+ will work with glibc-2.16.
--
Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes
2012-10-30 19:30:16 Diego Elio Pettenò napisał(a):
Given the amount of headaches that Boost seems to give us all, now
thanks to the recent changes even more because Gentoo's boost is
different from all others and no upstream default check seem to work
correctly with it, I'm questioning the
On 30/10/2012 19:50, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
I think that slotting is needed, but pkg_postinst() could create
(without using `eselect boost`) symlinks like /usr/include/boost
etc. It is possible that a package works with e.g. Boost 1.50, but
not 1.51, so it could use
Am Dienstag, den 30.10.2012, 11:30 -0700 schrieb Diego Elio Pettenò:
Given the amount of headaches that Boost seems to give us all, now
thanks to the recent changes even more because Gentoo's boost is
different from all others and no upstream default check seem to work
correctly with it, I'm
On 30/10/2012 22:44, Tiziano Müller wrote:
I agree. It really doesn't make sense to keep unbuildable stuff in the
tree. The point of slotting it in the first place was also to force a
rebuild of reverse dependencies to have them use newer boost (since at
that time when boost slotting was
25 matches
Mail list logo
