From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Mar 10 16:05:17 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35EAE106566C for ; Tue, 10 Mar 2009 16:05:17 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from avg@icyb.net.ua) Received: from citadel.icyb.net.ua (citadel.icyb.net.ua [212.40.38.140]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 698CA8FC0A for ; Tue, 10 Mar 2009 16:05:16 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from avg@icyb.net.ua) Received: from odyssey.starpoint.kiev.ua (alpha-e.starpoint.kiev.ua [212.40.38.101]) by citadel.icyb.net.ua (8.8.8p3/ICyb-2.3exp) with ESMTP id SAA27495; Tue, 10 Mar 2009 18:05:11 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from avg@icyb.net.ua) Message-ID: <49B68FB6.8060505@icyb.net.ua> Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 18:05:10 +0200 From: Andriy Gapon User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (X11/20090110) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alexander Churanov References: <49ABED6D.8080909@icyb.net.ua> <3c0b01820903020819s65adc166qd0d707ce8820b3b9@mail.gmail.com> <3cb459ed0903061347w599c521ex34267fd168882cac@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <3cb459ed0903061347w599c521ex34267fd168882cac@mail.gmail.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Alexander Sack , FreeBSD Ports Subject: Re: fresh devel/boost X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 16:05:17 -0000 on 06/03/2009 23:47 Alexander Churanov said the following: > Hi guys! > I am Alexander Churanov, currently maintaining devel/boost (for > several weeks :-). > > Yes, leaving 1.34 would be awful and nobody is going to do that! > For current status, current efforts and decisions see > http://wiki.freebsd.org/BoostPortingProject. Alexander, I agree with the "better" approach, but why wait for months until all deadlines are passed if we can create boost 1.38 port right now and then shuffle ports around later. I think that happened quite a few times in the past. > My comments on the suggested solution: > The goal is to have most recent boost by default in devel/boost. Of > course, it is possible to provide 1.38 in some separate location. > However, this would make ports look like we stuck to 1.34 forever and Well, about this argument - I'd prefer something objective over something subjective any time, and how things "appear" is very subjective. > provide recent boost libraries for hackers. > > The better approach is to provide 1.34 in a separate location and > modify all ports that depend on old boost to use that location. The > hard part of it is "modify all ports". It's not obvious for me what's > easier: to modify all ports (source code) to work with 1.38 or to > modify all ports (build files) to look for 1.34 in some special place. > > Having multiple versions of the same ports installed at the same time > is nice idea, it needs more time to think and experiment with. For > instance, I'd like to examine how Gentoo does that and learn their's > procs and cons. I'd be glad to see FreeBSD capable of doing that for > any arbitrary port. It seems we have some very good examples like openldap ports. -- Andriy Gapon