From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Sat Apr 17 11:38:23 2021 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C9C25D1BB8 for ; Sat, 17 Apr 2021 11:38:23 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wjw@withagen.nl) Received: from mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (mailman.nyi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::50:13]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FMrgL5sZcz4bJQ for ; Sat, 17 Apr 2021 11:38:22 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wjw@withagen.nl) Received: by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) id C94E85D1B9A; Sat, 17 Apr 2021 11:38:22 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: ports@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C915E5D1B98 for ; Sat, 17 Apr 2021 11:38:22 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wjw@withagen.nl) Received: from smtp.digiware.nl (smtp.digiware.nl [IPv6:2001:4cb8:90:ffff::3]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4FMrgL4ZGTz4bZw; Sat, 17 Apr 2021 11:38:20 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wjw@withagen.nl) Received: from router10g.digiware.nl (localhost.digiware.nl [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.digiware.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55F7C514CE; Sat, 17 Apr 2021 13:38:10 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at digiware.com Received: from smtp.digiware.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by router10g.digiware.nl (router10g.digiware.nl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AoQB6wSkgZqd; Sat, 17 Apr 2021 13:38:09 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.10.9] (vaio [192.168.10.9]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.digiware.nl (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BFA42515B7; Sat, 17 Apr 2021 13:38:09 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Re: Boost versions To: Li-Wen Hsu , Kurt Jaeger Cc: "ports@freebsd.org" References: From: Willem Jan Withagen Message-ID: Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2021 13:38:10 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/68.0 Thunderbird/68.12.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4FMrgL4ZGTz4bZw X-Spamd-Bar: ---- X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.00 / 15.00]; REPLY(-4.00)[] X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 17 Apr 2021 17:39:47 +0000 X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2021 11:38:23 -0000 On 17-4-2021 13:09, Li-Wen Hsu wrote: > On Sat, Apr 17, 2021 at 6:58 PM Kurt Jaeger wrote: >> >> Hi! >> >>> Ceph has moved to Boost 1.75, so now it is build with the project. >>> Which is of course a pity. >>> >>> Are there any plans to also get Boost 1.75 in ports? >> >> There is this one PR which touches the topic: >> >> https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=246106 >> >> 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? > > I don't think office@ currently has enough manpower to maintain boost > ports. I suggest we need to seek a new maintainer or form a group to > maintain it. > > I am also interested in updating boost, but I don't think I can > maintain it solely. I can help on porting, allocating resource to > test, but I don't think I can fix all the issues during upgrading and > exp-run myself alone. I hope the maintenance of the complex ports > like this can be a team work. > > Is anyone interested in joining the effort? I am importing boost 1.75 raw into Ceph, and build it there. That seems to work for what ceph needs. There used to be several versions of Boost in parallel. 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. The report in bugzilla suggests that that is all what other maintainers ask. Or am I too simple in thinking this? --WjW