Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2021 15:19:43 +0200 From: Willem Jan Withagen <wjw@digiware.nl> To: Kurt Jaeger <pi@freebsd.org> Cc: "ports@freebsd.org" <ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Boost versions Message-ID: <d94371df-2330-6b50-eff9-8aa7a6b876bd@digiware.nl> In-Reply-To: <YHrRtR8zE7uMYgo8@home.opsec.eu> References: <f6a433e3-6812-7acf-db06-6a0317d19e38@withagen.nl> <3e4d9c90-7bfd-7a63-de32-525e459dad7c@digiware.nl> <YHrRtR8zE7uMYgo8@home.opsec.eu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 17-4-2021 14:16, Kurt Jaeger wrote: > Getting the port to build is one thing. Right that is probably not very complicated. But the API/ABI changes are indeed a pain. Reason for all kinds of trouble with Ceph as well. >> There used to be several versions of Boost in parallel. > Yes. I have no idea how easy that would be. Neither do I, it is just a vague recollection. But there must be more libraries with that same challenge? > > The bigger part is, as you described: > >> So perhaps that is the best way to avoid having to deal with ABI/API >> breakage... >> After that it is up to the maintainers of the dependant packages to >> update their package and start using boost-1.75. > There is the implicit assumption that a patch that updates > boost for all the dependent ports should also provide fixes > if those ports fail to build after the update. That is > the major task. There are "only" 490 ports that have boost in their Makefile. >> Or am I too simple in thinking this? > No. > > The normal way would be to provide the patch, testbuild all the > depends, list the broken ports in the PR and then a small group of > folks can try to fix them one by one. I have no experience in that. Keeping up with Ceph is already quite a task, since that is a very fast moving task. --WjW
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?d94371df-2330-6b50-eff9-8aa7a6b876bd>