Hi Steve, On Sun Dec 25, 2011 03:58:23PM -0600, Steve M. Robbins wrote: > Hello Thomas, > > On Sun, Dec 25, 2011 at 05:59:56PM +0100, Thomas Krennwallner wrote: > > Source: boost-defaults > > Severity: important > > > > Hi! > > > > When I try to install, e.g., libboost-filesystem-dev 1.48.0.2, the > > dependencies forces to install libboost-filesystem1.46-dev. See also the > > control file of boost-defaults: > > I don't believe there is a bug here. What happened is that > > 1. I released boost defaults version 1.48.0.1 that changed the default to > Boost 1.48.0. > 2. It turns out this is too soon as there are packages that fail to build > with Boost 1.48. > 3. I released boost defaults version 1.48.0.2 that reverted the default back > to 1.46.1. > > I see now that versioning the boost-defaults according to the boost version > is a mistake, > but for the moment, that's what we're stuck with. So it is weird and > surprising that > the current default is 1.46.1, but that's what it is. > > If you still feel there is a bug, please reply with more details. > Otherwise, please email 653228-d...@bugs.debian.org to close this bug.
I see now, but then we have a problem. The semantics of libboost-*-dev have always been, at least this was my understanding, to depend on the latest stable version of boost. If one needs a particular (older) version of boost, then we have the versioned packages libboost-*N.MM-dev. If a particular package FTBFS with the newest version of boost, then it's a bug of that package. Which can be easily fixed by using Build-Depends: libboost-*N.MM-dev and a re-upload. Then, there is enough time to fix the package by investigating what's wrong in the first place with the latest stable version. In a sense, it's a good thing that boost-defaults depends on the newest version, otw. people don't realize that boost breaks their package and won't fix their package early in time. This was actually what I did when I run into the problem: I fixed my package and then setup Build-Depends with libboost-*1.48-dev instead of libboost-*-dev. The question is now, how shall we proceed? 1. If you think that libboost-*-dev should depend on /the currently most stable version of boost (wrt. the debian package archive)/, then there is nothing to do and we can close this bug. 2. But if you feel that libboost-*-dev should depend on /the latest stable version of boost/, then I have the impression that we should force people to fix their package to depend on libboost-*N.MM-dev, as this is what they then depend on in reality. Because changing boost-defaults later in time (weeks, months?) to depend on the new boost release will break those packages eventually. I would opt for (2), as packages will only FTBFS with this change, it won't break compiled packages, as they depend on the linked versioned shared libraries. But that's just my 2 cents. Best, TK -- Thomas Krennwallner University assistant . TU Wien - Vienna University of Technology Institute of Information Systems Favoritenstrasse 9-11, 1040 Wien, Austria . T: +43 1 58801 18469 F: +43 1 58801 918469 tkren AT kr DOT tuwien DOT ac DOT at http://www.kr.tuwien.ac.at/staff/tkren/ . DVR: 0005886 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org