On Sun, 23 Sep 2018 at 08:38, Adrian Bunk <b...@debian.org> wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 12:45:12PM +0200, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote: > > On Sun, 16 Sep 2018 at 11:16, Niels Thykier <ni...@thykier.net> wrote: > >... > > > Hi, > > > > > > I noticed at least 13 packages that have boost-related changes in an > > > Ubuntu diff (and I certainly have *not* checked all packages in the > > > boost transition tracker; I only looked at dep level 3). > > > > > > * libcutl > > > * lvtk > > > * minieigen > > > * opengm (removes binary packages) > > > * performous (moves to boost1.65) > > > * pyexiv2 > > > * pytango > > > * shark (reduces test precision) > > > * tagpy > > > * vcmi (moves to boost1.65) > > > * anytun > > > * aptitude > > > * freeture > > > > > > Can you please provide a full list of packages that will break with the > > > new boost default? How will Debian handle the packages that Ubuntu > > > > I do not have a full list. These do not break on runtime in general > > (apart from a very small subset of things which dlopen/link > > incompatible plugins), since old boost is provided and is > > co-installable. They may start to FTBFS. > > If you want to do the normal build-testing before the transition, > it would be helpful to have updated boost-defaults in experimental. >
Largely rebuilds in Ubuntu have been sufficient to identify and fix the bulk of boost transition issues http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/transitions/html/boost1.67.html After the initial rounds of NMUs I typically work off the Debian transition tracker to complete transition / files FTBFS bugs / NMU patches. I can prepare the boost-defaults upload into experimental, but I'd rather have this transition approved and boost-defaults uploaded into unstable. > >... > > those will stick on boost1.62. thus the option for those would be to > > change build-dep to libboost1.62-all-dev. > > Changing build dependencies to 1.62 only makes sense if this version > will be shipped in buster. > This request is for transitioning boost-defaults from 1.62 to 1.67, without removal of 1.62. > >... > > The longer this transition is delayed the worse it gets. Thus already > > default boost is 5 major releases behind. > > What is the version planned to be shipped in buster? > Source packages: boost1.67 boost1.62 boost-defaults > 1.68 is already released, and 1.69 will be released in December. > Neither of which are packaged yet. > IMHO doing 1.62 -> 1.67 -> 1.68 would not make sense at this point. > > Better options would be: > 1.62 -> 1.68 -> 1.69 > 1.62 -> 1.68 > 1.62 -> 1.67 -> 1.69 > Cool, are you signing up to package 1.68 & 1.69 then? - my reading of your email seems to imply, that packaging of 1.68/1.69 is a given when it is not. Cause at the moment we have only 1.67 done, which was extremely hard to complete in order to comply with copyright requirements. > The critical question here is whether there will be a transition to 1.69 > before the transition freeze (January 12th). > At the moment there are no volunteers who can commit to packaging 1.68/1.69 and specifically updating the copyright file. Unless you can volunteer to do that. I have no intentions on packaging 1.68 or 1.69 in Ubuntu for the 19.04 release at the moment. Thus most likely can look into further boost new upstream packaging in a years time only probably. -- Regards, Dimitri.
