Am Dienstag, den 30.10.2012, 22:48 -0700 schrieb Diego Elio Pettenò:
> On 30/10/2012 22:44, Tiziano Müller wrote:
> > I agree. It really doesn't make sense to keep unbuildable stuff in the
> > tree. The point of slotting it in the first place was also to force a
> > rebuild of reverse dependencies
On 30/10/2012 22:44, Tiziano Müller wrote:
> I agree. It really doesn't make sense to keep unbuildable stuff in the
> tree. The point of slotting it in the first place was also to force a
> rebuild of reverse dependencies to have them use newer boost (since at
> that time when boost slotting was in
Am Dienstag, den 30.10.2012, 11:30 -0700 schrieb Diego Elio Pettenò:
> Given the amount of headaches that Boost seems to give us all, now
> thanks to the recent changes even more because Gentoo's boost is
> different from all others and no upstream default check seem to work
> correctly with it, I'
On 30/10/2012 19:50, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
> I think that slotting is needed, but pkg_postinst() could create
> (without using `eselect boost`) symlinks like /usr/include/boost
> etc. It is possible that a package works with e.g. Boost 1.50, but
> not 1.51, so it could use boos
2012-10-30 19:30:16 Diego Elio Pettenò napisał(a):
> Given the amount of headaches that Boost seems to give us all, now
> thanks to the recent changes even more because Gentoo's boost is
> different from all others and no upstream default check seem to work
> correctly with it, I'm questioning the
On 30/10/2012 16:34, James Cloos wrote:
> Since protage failed to preserve icu-49 for me, upon which boost
> depends, I found that 1.48 and 1.49 build with gcc 4.7.2; but none
> of the earlier versions did.
And only 1.50+ will work with glibc-2.16.
--
Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes
flamee...@fla
> "DEP" == Diego Elio Pettenò writes:
DEP> Among other things, with each GCC/GLIBC update all but a handful of
DEP> slots are kept working; in this case I think most if not all <1.50
DEP> are broken.
One datapoint:
Since protage failed to preserve icu-49 for me, upon which boost
depends, I
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 4:59 PM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
>
> On 30/10/12 22:49, Michael Mol wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 4:45 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò
>> mailto:flamee...@flameeyes.eu>> wrote:
>>
>> On 30/10/2012 13:39, Michael Mol wrote:
>> > In general, I agree...but Boost wasn't i
On 30/10/12 22:49, Michael Mol wrote:
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 4:45 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò
mailto:flamee...@flameeyes.eu>> wrote:
On 30/10/2012 13:39, Michael Mol wrote:
> In general, I agree...but Boost wasn't intended to be a shared
library,
> so there shouldn't be a conflict
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 4:45 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò
wrote:
> On 30/10/2012 13:39, Michael Mol wrote:
> > In general, I agree...but Boost wasn't intended to be a shared library,
> > so there shouldn't be a conflict there.
>
> But there are shared libraries, and they are not small either. And I'd
>
On 30/10/2012 13:39, Michael Mol wrote:
> In general, I agree...but Boost wasn't intended to be a shared library,
> so there shouldn't be a conflict there.
But there are shared libraries, and they are not small either. And I'd
rather, say, hunt an RWX section problem (a security problem) with a
si
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 4:26 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò
wrote:
> On 30/10/2012 12:31, Michael Mol wrote:
> >
> > I've never understood why Gentoo uses a separate ebuild for it. I mean,
> > I can understand some efficiency gains from having a single compiled
> > copy, but it shouldn't be surprising in
On 30/10/2012 13:10, Michał Górny wrote:
> By inheriting boost-utils and using the correct function to use older
> boost slot?
Which will not work.
Can you build boost-1.49 with glibc-2.16? NO! At least not without
patching it by changing its API.
So how do you propose to solve package A that do
On 30/10/2012 13:04, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> #1 - the MAX_BOOST_VERSION thing isn't needed anymore (and i get the
> impression that it actually is, but putting that aside since i don't
> maintain any packages that depend on boost), and
It'll just behave like _every other library_ we have in the
On 30/10/2012 12:31, Michael Mol wrote:
>
> I've never understood why Gentoo uses a separate ebuild for it. I mean,
> I can understand some efficiency gains from having a single compiled
> copy, but it shouldn't be surprising in the least when upstream makes
> breaking changes in the API.
Because
On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 16:02:59 -0400
Ian Stakenvicius 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
> > wrote:
> >
> >> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256
> >>
> >>
On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 12:32:57 -0700
Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> On 30/10/2012 12:24, Michał Górny wrote:
> > 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?
>
> How are you going to
On 30/10/12 22:02, Ian Stakenvicius 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
wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256
On 30/10/12 03:45 PM, Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
Dne Ú
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 30/10/12 02:30 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> Given the amount of headaches that Boost seems to give us all, now
> thanks to the recent changes even more because Gentoo's boost is
> different from all others and no upstream default check seem t
-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
> 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, Mi
On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 15:56:21 -0400
Ian Stakenvicius 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 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 wrote:
>>
>>> So given that it's a PITA for the maintainers, a PITA for the
>>> us
Dne Út 30. října 2012 20:24:26, Michał Górny napsal(a):
> On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 11:30:16 -0700
>
> Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> > Given the amount of headaches that Boost seems to give us all, now
> > thanks to the recent changes even more because Gentoo's boost is
> > different from all others and
On 30/10/12 21:24, Michał Górny wrote:
On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 11:30:16 -0700
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
On 30/10/2012 12:24, Michał Górny wrote:
> 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?
How are you going to solve the problem that the packages that are not
fixed to work with a new
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 3:24 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 11:30:16 -0700
> Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
>
> > Given the amount of headaches that Boost seems to give us all, now
> > thanks to the recent changes even more because Gentoo's boost is
> > different from all others and no
On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 11:30:16 -0700
Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> Given the amount of headaches that Boost seems to give us all, now
> thanks to the recent changes even more because Gentoo's boost is
> different from all others and no upstream default check seem to work
> correctly with it, I'm ques
27 matches
Mail list logo
