Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2008 09:52:12 -0600 From: "Jeremy Messenger" <mezz7@cox.net> To: Flex <flex1980@gmail.com> Cc: Alexander Churanov <alexanderchuranov@gmail.com>, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org, Emanuel Haupt <ehaupt@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Boost 1.37 released! Message-ID: <op.uj5k1xc59aq2h7@localhost> In-Reply-To: <20c4814a0811050113i1bed72abu84b16c7343f93c4f@mail.gmail.com> References: <20c4814a0811030712n4105c765p23983b55f729b25e@mail.gmail.com> <20081103192933.e4aeedef.ehaupt@FreeBSD.org> <3cb459ed0811031237l3adeef89t86a70030cca57fff@mail.gmail.com> <20081103223115.78fbbaef.ehaupt@FreeBSD.org> <3cb459ed0811031506g4b450865q34d33988a688c3@mail.gmail.com> <20081104002942.f136adec.ehaupt@FreeBSD.org> <op.uj2w7tm19aq2h7@localhost> <20c4814a0811050113i1bed72abu84b16c7343f93c4f@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 03:13:33 -0600, Flex <flex1980@gmail.com> wrote: > I also agree with you Jeremy. devel/boost-devel makes no sense as it is a > stable and not a development version.When there are so much ports that > depend on devel/boost (as version 1.34) then I see two approaches to > solve > this. > > 1.) Try to find out if boost 1.37 is binary compatible with boost 1.34. > If > so, then we could update it to the actual version without breaking the > ports > depending on it, IMHO. I made this a question to the boost irc channel > and > got only the answer that this is doubtable so far. The binary compatible does not matter as it only forces us to wait until complete unfreeze. We can bump all of other ports to get rebuild. What about the API (source) compatible? It's more important than ABI (binary) compatible as we need to make sure others can build with newer boost. > 2.) We should think of one or two alternative boost port(s) like > devel/boost137 and devel/boost138. All depending ports must be made > dependant to devel/boost137 then. Other ports also keep two ports with > their > (often major) release numbers and switch dependent ports back and forth > to > the right port release number. We don't need devel/boost137 either if all other ports can build with newer boost or easy to get others fix with newer boost. We should avoid two same exactly libraries in ports tree if they don't do the parallel installation (non-conflict) as possible unless no choice to do two or more. > I'd prefer the second because there are less side effects and problems > possible. > Also please note that http://home.leo.org isn't accessible anymore. > Hopefully someone, preferrably Alexander, has the 1.35 patch from Simon > to > check whether it's easy to bump the port to 1.37 easily. I also agree to > send a PR. Yeah, two people have told me about that URL is dead. Too bad, I don't have this file anymore. Cheers, Mezz > /Flex -- mezz7@cox.net - mezz@FreeBSD.org FreeBSD GNOME Team http://www.FreeBSD.org/gnome/ - gnome@FreeBSD.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?op.uj5k1xc59aq2h7>