Ken Moffat wrote:
New versions of boost almost always cause build problems in some of
the packages which use it. Sometimes waiting a little while means
that other distros find workarounds, but at other times waiting does
not help.
If we are talking seriously about reverting it, can we have a list
of which packages *have* already been built against it ?
That's a good idea.
Perhaps, for some packages like boost, we should not jump in as
soon as it is released, but instead add details to the ticket noting
which packages (and versions) seem ok with it, and therefore listing
which have not been built. And then at some point we can bring it
back to the list and agree to try it, or else to find somebody to
build the packages which are preventing it being used. I remember
having to test a lot of packages before putting a new openssl
version (the 1.0.0 series, I suppose) into the book.
Or we can just say that this is development, temporarily disable
the dep (we've done that in libreoffice - for boost in the past) and
hope that something will eventually turn up. I hardly ever use
cmake packages - is it possible to stop kdepim from building against
boost by adding a definition when cmake is invoked ? Doing that
will not solve all the problems, some packages require boost.
I do note that for kdepim the log says:
-- The following REQUIRED packages have been found:
...
* Boost (required version >= 1.34.0) , Boost C++ Libraries ,
<http://www.boost.org>
Boost is required for building most KDEPIM applications
We have that dependency Recommended, but it should be Required.
-- Bruce
--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
