[pkg-boost-devel] Bug#508236 closed by Debian Archive Maintenance <ftpmaster at ftp-master.debian.org> (Bug#508236: fixed)

[Steve M. Robbins]

On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 11:21:40AM +0100, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> On 2008-12-11 10:20:26.00 Steve M. Robbins <steve at sumost.ca> wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 09:38:47AM +0100, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> > > On 2008-12-11 09:14:23.00 Steve M. Robbins <steve at sumost.ca> wrote:
> > > > Hey, no fair!
> > > 
> > > > The deal was that boost1.37 be accepted into the archive before
> > > > removing 1.36.  With this removal we have gone from being 4 months out
> > > > of date (Boost 1.36 was released in August) to 8 months out of date
> > > > (Boost 1.35 released end of March).
> > > 
> > > No, sorry. If you want to be able to deliver the greatest boost of the day, teach them about API stability.
> > 
> > That's an old debate.  You're welcome to engage with the Boost folks
> > yourself.  I believe they know about the issue but it's not the
> > biggest priority for Boost.
> > 
> > My role is to try to ensure that Debian keeps up with Boost.
> 
> Yes. I understand that it's not your choice, but this is a
> misalignment with the requirements of Debian and there is a limit on
> how much Debian can adapt to this. 

I appreciate your opinion.  In the opinion of the Debian Boost
packagers, we have adapted adequately to the competing demands of
keeping Boost up-to-date with not breaking all the Boost-using
packages with every update.


> I do not think that keeping
> (time() - release-date-of-newest-boost-in-unstable) is the only
> argument here, boost is not a newspaper.

Certainly it's not the only argument.  In addition to that, we've got
people emailing constantly asking for Boost 1.37.



> Based on the discussion between you and Joerg and an explicit ACK by
> Joerg on IRC, I pulled the old version now.  Joerg quite explicitly
> said that boost 1.36 would go now while the removal of boost 1.35
> should be tagged moreinfo. Between there and the filing of the bugs
> this seems to have changed to delay both removals, 

Correct.  I double-checked the build-dependencies and noticed there is
one package (openturns) build-depending on boost1.36.  I wrote this
right into the bug so as to avoid confusion.  Perhaps I could have
been more clear.

Joerg missed this originally and suggested immediate removal on the
assumption that no Debian packages use it.


> Mind you, we are having this discussion over the day or two between
> the removal of boost 1.36 and acceptance of 1.37, 

Thank you.  I look forward to having Boost 1.37 processed in a
day or two.

Regards,
-Steve
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-boost-devel/attachments/20081211/599385eb/attachment.pgp