Re: Boost

["Dr. Thomas Orgis" <thomas.orgis%uni-hamburg.de@localhost>]

Am Wed, 19 May 2021 17:41:40 +0000
schrieb nia <nia%NetBSD.org@localhost>: 

> On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 01:11:15PM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote:
> > 
> > nia <nia%NetBSD.org@localhost> writes:
> >   
> > > I mainly care about having working binary packages, actually.
> > > I want our users not to think that packages disappearing is the norm.  
> > 
> > Agreed!

Disagree. At least on the binary package thing. For my use case, pkgsrc
is there to provide binaries and a build environment for user's own
software, with some emphasis on the latter. For that, at least the
default boost version should be present in the usual unversioned
location (headers) and any libs that in turn rely on boost should use
this one.

Regarding disappearing packages: Yes, some balance where it is more
important to have working stuff than the freshest boost. Upcoming boost
in wip for testing things until a bulk works would be fine. Just …
I think someone told me the trick, but I forgot … you somehow can
reroute all

.include ../../devel/boost-libs/buildlink3.mk

to

.include ../../wip/boost-libs171/buildlink3.mk

?

Or would a version switch be feasible so that one can set a mk.conf
variable for bleeding edge boost for development/testing?

It's a dilemma when you want to support a developer for adapting things
to new boost (or any other lib) while too much stuff is not yet
adapted. You need to start somewhere. Stable API/ABI would be fun.


Alrighty then,

Thomas

-- 
Dr. Thomas Orgis
HPC @ Universität Hamburg