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

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

Reply via email to