Is someone already working on a port that supports Boost 1.35.0?

[Aryeh M. Friedman]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Simon Barner wrote:
|> | Yes, I am working on a port. I will send a message to freebsd-ports
|> | once it is ready for testing.
|>
|> While your at it please make it so there is one boost port not boost and
|> boost-python
|
| I will keep boost and boost-python in seperate ports in order to
| keep boost as lean as possible. boost-python will no longer conflict
| with boost but just add python support. The same applies for OpenMPI
| and MPICH support.
|
| Simon
|
Have you ever examined the ports that actually use boost and 
boost-pyhton... it seems completely random sometimes which one is which 
(i.e. stuff that doesn't require pyhton often depends on boost-python 
and stuff that does depend on it relies on boost).... this leads to some 
really nasty conflicts and hard to resolve (unless you have done it 
before) ordering problems (if I build port A then B then B will fail 
because it wanted one flavor of boost when the other one is the 
installed one but if you do B then A then it works fine because A 
doesn't care what flavor of boost it is looking for).... the classic 
example of this is net-p2p/deluge and multimedia/miro where deluge wants 
python and miro doesn't care.... Since it is trivial to have a 
build/ruin depend on an OPTION (and you already do it via a gnob no more 
complexity it added by doing it as an OPTION)... Almost every time I 
have brought boost problems up the overwelming consenus among 
maintainers that relie on boost is two seperate ports is completely insane.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (FreeBSD)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkgX2R4ACgkQk8GFzCrQm4AGEgCbBtFhlrP/TvWB6BLczKWpxA2k
UzkAnill/mMrh2CgeNVfeRuFuKJ6sv3n
=TCL6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----