Re: git: a4245a4c6ce1 - main - devel/boost: update to 1.87.0 release (+)
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2025 10:41:03 UTC
On 2025-02-15 07:32, Cy Schubert wrote: > In message<6c28366e-b7c2-47b7-9a04-13b963ac6889@freebsd.org>, Matthias > Fechner > writes: >> Dear Dima, >> >> Am 14.02.2025 um 05:17 schrieb Dima Panov: >>> devel/boost: update to 1.87.0 release (+) >>> >>> New port devel/boost-mpi-libs, Message Passing Interface library, >>> for use in distributed-memory parallel application programming. >>> >>> In this release Boost have dropped some long-time-ago deprecated asio >> facilites >>> Seehttps://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_87_0/doc/html/boost_asio/history.h >> tml for details. >>> >>> Release Notes:https://www.boost.org/users/history/version_1_87_0.html >>> Sponsored by: Future Crew, LLC >> so you really think it is a good idea to break kea and icinga2 by this >> upgrade without giving the maintainers a change to prepare an update? > I don't think that was a good idea either. When broken ports are discovered > during an exp-run it's the responsibility of the committer to either fix > the ports or open PRs, assigned to the maintainers, to address the problems. > >> I personally had to rollback this change as kea is crucial as it >> distributes IPs to all my servers and icinga2 is used to monitor all >> system/services. > I'm importing kea 2.7.6 (development branch) as kea-deevl. It addresses the > problem. I will backport the fix to the 2.6 branch (kea). > > boot-libs 1.87 fails to patch. I've emailed the committer and cc'd this > list. All we've heard are crickets. > > >> Maybe give it next time a little more reaction time for the consumers of >> this lib? > Agreed. > > Certainly disappointing. > >> Gruß >> Matthias >> >> -- >> >> "Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to >> build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the universe trying to >> produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the universe is winning." -- >> Rich Cook Hi, As much as breakage is bad I do understand fluffy's decision due to how we currently handle updates of libraries that touches multiple ports in tree as it's a very tedious and time consuming effort. Much of it lies in the fact that some have very strong feelings about not pruning the tree for various reason. I fully recognize the fact that everyone have different opinions, needs etc and portmgr even tried to make a generic policy (which never got finalized to my knowledge)of it but in the end of the it causes a lot of hold ups, eats a lot of time and some compromises needs to be made to make progress. I'm not saying that bulldozing is the way to go but I would also say cut him some slack because trying to "align" the tree for each boost release is well near impossible without turning it into a project that's ongoing for months and by that time we're very much behind. If you want some historical PRs have a look at on the "trying to please everyone" approach: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=261302 https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=278420 https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=279705 (I'm very close to say lets go and mark the rest as broken to move forward at this point) ...to mention a few. To be fair, I think a two week heads up is reasonable (generic timeout) before pushing it or at least for replies due to how frequent upstream development is and how much time we can "spare/demand" from various committers. Best regards, Daniel