avg at icyb.net.ua
Tue Mar 10 09:05:17 PDT 2009
on 06/03/2009 23:47 Alexander Churanov said the following:
> Hi guys!
> I am Alexander Churanov, currently maintaining devel/boost (for
> several weeks :-).
> Yes, leaving 1.34 would be awful and nobody is going to do that!
> For current status, current efforts and decisions see
I agree with the "better" approach, but why wait for months until all deadlines
are passed if we can create boost 1.38 port right now and then shuffle ports
around later. I think that happened quite a few times in the past.
> My comments on the suggested solution:
> The goal is to have most recent boost by default in devel/boost. Of
> course, it is possible to provide 1.38 in some separate location.
> However, this would make ports look like we stuck to 1.34 forever and
Well, about this argument - I'd prefer something objective over something
subjective any time, and how things "appear" is very subjective.
> provide recent boost libraries for hackers.
> The better approach is to provide 1.34 in a separate location and
> modify all ports that depend on old boost to use that location. The
> hard part of it is "modify all ports". It's not obvious for me what's
> easier: to modify all ports (source code) to work with 1.38 or to
> modify all ports (build files) to look for 1.34 in some special place.
> Having multiple versions of the same ports installed at the same time
> is nice idea, it needs more time to think and experiment with. For
> instance, I'd like to examine how Gentoo does that and learn their's
> procs and cons. I'd be glad to see FreeBSD capable of doing that for
> any arbitrary port.
It seems we have some very good examples like openldap ports.
More information about the freebsd-ports