Dne Út 30. října 2012 20:24:26, Michał Górny napsal(a): > On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 11:30:16 -0700 > > Diego Elio Pettenò <flamee...@flameeyes.eu> wrote: > > Given the amount of headaches that Boost seems to give us all, now > > thanks to the recent changes even more because Gentoo's boost is > > different from all others and no upstream default check seem to work > > correctly with it, I'm questioning the usefulness of having it slotted. > > Could you elaborate on that? I don't remember having problems with > boost.m4 or cmake's default checks unless I'm missing something which > is obvious to you.
Michal, given my affiliation with libreoffice I am handling quite few sh*t about buildsystems there. Currently we have orcus/wps/visio and libreoffice itself checking for internal components of boost in the configure scripts. You basically want me to add 1 kB m4 file from some github site (aside from fact it is nicely licensed GPLv3) and change all those checks we have to confor with this m4 so they work again for Gentoo. Here let me put the emphasis on "FOR GENTOO" because no other distro on to this day had problem with the boost setup lo projects are using, and we include stuff like win and mac. My alternative for this work is to do this on gentoo side and add append cflags and libs in each pkg using the boost-utils eclass and again add more shit i have to maintain into each ebuild. > > > So given that it's a PITA for the maintainers, a PITA for the users, > > eselect boost has been shown to be a bad idea and so on ... can we just > > go back to just install it and that's about it? > > How are you going to solve the issue of a lot of packages being broken > with new boost versions? Are you volunteering to keep fixing them with > each release? Simple, as any other lib, depend on older version and possibly port it forward. If that does not work then mask and wipe. Life goes on. Do we have at least some good use case on split boost requirement? Tomas
