On 5 June 2012 at 10:51, Julien Cristau wrote: | On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 21:08:23 -0500, Steve M. Robbins wrote: | | > Hi, | > | > The output from "dak" for removing source boost1.46 lists a number of | > broken r-deps, which is to be expected. I had expected that all such | > packages should be part of the Boost transition tracker [1] but | > surprisingly, two are missing: | > | > gpsshogi: gpsshogi [amd64 i386] | > libosl: libosl1 [amd64 i386] | > | > Can these be added to the transition tracker? | > | > [1] http://release.debian.org/transitions/html/boost1.49.html | > | > | > There are additionally three broken build-depends, all of which have | > trivial fixes that I can NMU, if required. I've added a blocking bug | > for each against this removal bug. Do you want me to NMU these | > three prior to removal? | > | I think the main blocker for boost1.46 removal from testing right now is | quantlib. Maybe we should give up on that for arm, mipsen and s390, and | get the existing out of date rquantlib and quantlib-swig binaries | removed. Maintainer added to cc.
I would be in favour of that. Quantlib is an interesting library; these two packages (rquantlib, quantlib-swig) are its only users and I do not think our users (on other platforms) are better served by holding this back because of the build errors on the more esoteric platforms -- the combination of Quantlib and arm/mips/s390 is just too rare. So as distasteful as removing packages is, in this case we should. Dirk | | As for the rest that would mean removing the following source packages | from testing: | boost1.46 bitcoin kraft gpsshogi libosl rdkit yade cinfony pycuda | pyopencl | | Cheers, | Julien -- Dirk Eddelbuettel | e...@debian.org | http://dirk.eddelbuettel.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20429.62772.446420.485...@max.nulle.part