Il 08/01/20 00:14, Andreas Beckmann ha scritto:
> since python2.7 is back in boost-python and my shlibs patch is in, too,
> I've requested a "transition" to get the binNMUs done to tighten the
> boost-python dependencies: https://bugs.debian.org/948378
Great, thanks.
Giovanni.
--
Giovanni Mascel
Hi all,
since python2.7 is back in boost-python and my shlibs patch is in, too,
I've requested a "transition" to get the binNMUs done to tighten the
boost-python dependencies: https://bugs.debian.org/948378
Andreas
On 06/01/2020 18.19, Giovanni Mascellani wrote:
>> To simplify such future transitions, I created a patch (#948273) to
>> actually make use of the virtual packages introduced in -12.
>> Please include it along with the reintroduction of python2 support in
>> *sid*. Then we can binNMU all rdepends o
On 06/01/2020 15.20, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote:
>> Please include it along with the reintroduction of python2 support in
>> *sid*. Then we can binNMU all rdepends of libboost-python1.67.0,
>> libboost-mpi-python1.67.0, libboost-numpy1.67.0 to add more strict
>> dependencies on the required python s
Hi,
Il 06/01/20 13:54, Andreas Beckmann ha scritto:
> This bug is not about the python2 removal. This bug is about removing a
> shared library without doing a proper transition, i.e. renaming the
> package (which will happen with boost1.71) or adding a bunch of Breaks.
> The same will happen again
On Mon, 6 Jan 2020 at 12:54, Andreas Beckmann wrote:
>
> On Sat, 4 Jan 2020 16:18:44 + Dimitri John Ledkov
> wrote:
> > I would be ok to reintroduce boost-python2.7 in experimental only.
>
> > > On Sat, 4 Jan 2020, 06:45 Giovanni Mascellani, wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hi,
> > >>
> > >> Il 03/01/20
On Sat, 4 Jan 2020 16:18:44 + Dimitri John Ledkov
wrote:
> I would be ok to reintroduce boost-python2.7 in experimental only.
> > On Sat, 4 Jan 2020, 06:45 Giovanni Mascellani, wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Il 03/01/20 22:07, Adrian Bunk ha scritto:
> >> > Dimitri already agreed in a private
I would be ok to reintroduce boost-python2.7 in experimental only.
On Sat, 4 Jan 2020, 16:16 Dimitri John Ledkov,
wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, 4 Jan 2020, 06:45 Giovanni Mascellani, wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Il 03/01/20 22:07, Adrian Bunk ha scritto:
>> > Dimitri already agreed in a private discussion that
On Sat, 4 Jan 2020, 06:45 Giovanni Mascellani, wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Il 03/01/20 22:07, Adrian Bunk ha scritto:
> > Dimitri already agreed in a private discussion that this change was
> bogus.
> >
>
Hm?! I acknowledge it is an Abi Break, but it was intentional. We want to
both drop python2 and drop b
Hi,
Il 03/01/20 22:07, Adrian Bunk ha scritto:
> Dimitri already agreed in a private discussion that this change was bogus.
>
> Are there any objections against an NMU reverting the bogus Python 2
> removal in boost1.67?
Totally agree that there is no reason to remote Python 2 support from
boost
Control: reopen -1
Control: reassign -1 libboost-python1.67.0 1.67.0-14
Control: retitle -1 libboost-python1.67.0 must not drop the Python 2.7 library
When a library package renames or drops a library it has to be removed.
In practice this will happen in the boost case with the transition
to 1.71.
11 matches
Mail list logo
