On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 16:02:59 -0400 Ian Stakenvicius <a...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA256 > > On 30/10/12 04:00 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote: > > On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 15:56:21 -0400 Ian Stakenvicius > > <a...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 > >> > >> On 30/10/12 03:45 PM, Tomáš Chvátal wrote: > >>> Dne Út 30. října 2012 20:24:26, Michał Górny napsal(a): > >>>> On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 11:30:16 -0700 > >>>> > >>>> Diego Elio Pettenò <flamee...@flameeyes.eu> wrote: > >> > >>>> > >>>>> So given that it's a PITA for the maintainers, a PITA for > >>>>> the users, eselect boost has been shown to be a bad idea > >>>>> and so on ... can we just go back to just install it and > >>>>> that's about it? > >>>> > >>>> How are you going to solve the issue of a lot of packages > >>>> being broken with new boost versions? Are you volunteering to > >>>> keep fixing them with each release? > >>> > >>> Simple, as any other lib, depend on older version and possibly > >>> port it forward. If that does not work then mask and wipe. Life > >>> goes on. > >>> > >> > >> If we un-slot boost there won't be an 'older' version available > >> on users systems anymore; when the new boost hits ~arch and then > >> stable, all ~arch / stable rdeps will -need- to build against > >> that version of boost, period (or be lastrite'd as ssuominen > >> suggested) .... unless i'm missing your meaning here? > > > > a sane pm wont try to upgrade to version 5 if <5 is required by > > some package. > > > > +1 for unslotting > > > > ..until something else ~arch (or stable) in the tree -needs- >=5 (and > we only need one fairly common package for that to happen), and then > it all falls apart with same-slot conflicts. > the good solution is obviously to keep it masked while proactively fixing packages and then unmask it. then there is absolutely no problem and that's what is generally done for other libraries.
