Hi, Il 13/02/20 12:11, Bas Couwenberg ha scritto: >> deb https://people.debian.org/~gio/reprepro gio main > > Why isn't the new boost-defaults (also) in experimental?
Er, no actual reason. This setup works for me and nobody ever asked me to upload to experimental. I can do that anyway, if that's better for you. > Thanks for looking into the upstream fix. > > It seems Gentoo people already reported the issue for Boost 1.70: > > https://github.com/mapnik/mapnik/issues/4098 > > Which contains the comment: > > " > Boost Spirit 1.71 has a small bug which is fixed on 1.72 > " > > Can't we transition to 1.72 in Debian as well, or cherry-pick the spirit > fix? I won't start working on any newer Boost version until 1.71 is made default. However there is still a lot of time for bullseye, so I'd say it's quite probable that we will have Boost >= 1.72 in bullseye. In this case I think it is reasonable to temporarily make mapnik depend on Boost 1.67 and fix it once 1.72+ is in. At the same time I don't have any problem in backporting the fix Boost.Spirit needs (if it's a reasonable patch), except that I don't quite understand which one it is. > Mapnik releases have become much more infrequent, there is not much > demand for releases from Mapbox which uses development snapshots. Right. Actually, artemp mentions in the upstream issue that he's planning to release 3.0.23 asap, but I don't really know when this will happen. And, still, we would need to fix Boost 1.71. I asked for pointers on the upstream issue. > If we can't get mapnik to work with the default boost in bullseye, we'll > just not ship it and its rdeps. Hopefully this extreme solution won't be required. :-) Thanks, Giovanni. -- Giovanni Mascellani <g.mascell...@gmail.com> Postdoc researcher - Université Libre de Bruxelles