-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 01/11/12 10:10 AM, Georg Rudoy wrote: > 2012/11/1 Jamie Learmonth <[email protected]>: >> Firstly, why are you guys always so mad, and secondly why don't >> we just start packaging more of these packages as binaries then >> or bundling the needed version like the rest of the world does >> anyways? > > So are you suggesting to package all the binaries that depend upon > too old boost, or upon too new boost, or whatever, as binaries? > > I always thought those few -bin packages are -bin just because > they take quite a lot time to be compiled. >
They are. This idea wouldn't work tho -- providing the old boost as binaries isn't actually going to help things, unless they are fully static, as it's the breakage against the toolchain that invalidates them (otherwise it wouldn't be an issue to leave 'em in the tree and for that matter leave boost slotted and have all rdeps just depend on the slot they were written for). And fully static binary packages are just plain wrong on any number of levels for something like this imo. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) iF4EAREIAAYFAlCSixYACgkQ2ugaI38ACPB72AD9EUYVEovDTDkHBmURJ3XGWt7Z EdPNP7F5k46lZAM6LscA/0rO3wjaVfBZDwKi88kX6NL3nWEUgpDxmNASrN42xs+O =KC5a -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
