2009/3/12 Andriy Gapon a...@icyb.net.ua:
on 12/03/2009 03:26 Alexander Churanov said the following:
The issue is devel/boost and devel/boost138 will not coexist. Is it OK
in your opinion?
I am not sure why... It is trivial to make different (non-default) boost
versions to install their
2009/3/10 Andriy Gapon a...@icyb.net.ua:
I agree with the better approach, but why wait for months until all
deadlines
are passed if we can create boost 1.38 port right now and then shuffle ports
around later. I think that happened quite a few times in the past.
The issue is devel/boost and
on 06/03/2009 23:47 Alexander Churanov said the following:
Hi guys!
I am Alexander Churanov, currently maintaining devel/boost (for
several weeks :-).
Yes, leaving 1.34 would be awful and nobody is going to do that!
For current status, current efforts and decisions see
Hi guys!
I am Alexander Churanov, currently maintaining devel/boost (for
several weeks :-).
Yes, leaving 1.34 would be awful and nobody is going to do that!
For current status, current efforts and decisions see
http://wiki.freebsd.org/BoostPortingProject.
My comments on the suggested solution:
I've seen couple of conversations in this list about updating devel/boost to the
recent version. As I understand people already have patches but the main issue
is
getting all ports depending on boost to work with the new version, and testing
this.
Now I am thinking - why not create a
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 9:30 AM, Andriy Gapon a...@icyb.net.ua wrote:
I've seen couple of conversations in this list about updating devel/boost to
the
recent version. As I understand people already have patches but the main
issue is
getting all ports depending on boost to work with the new
