Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2021 14:16:53 +0200 From: Kurt Jaeger <pi@freebsd.org> To: Willem Jan Withagen <wjw@digiware.nl> Cc: "ports@freebsd.org" <ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Boost versions Message-ID: <YHrRtR8zE7uMYgo8@home.opsec.eu> In-Reply-To: <3e4d9c90-7bfd-7a63-de32-525e459dad7c@digiware.nl> References: <f6a433e3-6812-7acf-db06-6a0317d19e38@withagen.nl> <3e4d9c90-7bfd-7a63-de32-525e459dad7c@digiware.nl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi! > > > > Ceph has moved to Boost 1.75, so now it is build with the project. > > > > Which is of course a pity. [...] > > > It looks like a major undertaking! > Why is that? > If I look at what is in phabricator, the largest part is diffs on the > plist? Getting the port to build is one thing. > There used to be several versions of Boost in parallel. Yes. I have no idea how easy that would be. The bigger part is, as you described: > So perhaps that is the best way to avoid having to deal with ABI/API > breakage... > After that it is up to the maintainers of the dependant packages to > update their package and start using boost-1.75. There is the implicit assumption that a patch that updates boost for all the dependent ports should also provide fixes if those ports fail to build after the update. That is the major task. > Or am I too simple in thinking this? No. The normal way would be to provide the patch, testbuild all the depends, list the broken ports in the PR and then a small group of folks can try to fix them one by one. -- pi@opsec.eu +49 171 3101372 Now what ?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?YHrRtR8zE7uMYgo8>