First Last Prev Next    No search results available      Search page      Enter new bug
Bug#: 91936
Alias:
Product:
Component:
Status: RESOLVED
Resolution: FIXED
Assigned To: Disenchanted (RETIRED) <morfic@gentoo.org>
Hardware:
OS:
Version:
Priority:
Severity:
Reporter: Marcelo Goes <vanquirius@gentoo.org>
Add CC:
CC:
Remove selected CCs
URL:
Summary:
Status Whiteboard:
Keywords:

Filename Description Type Creator Created Size Actions
Create a New Attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.) View All

Bug 91936 depends on: Show dependency tree
Bug 91936 blocks: 76396 94223
Votes: 0    Show votes for this bug    Vote for this bug

Additional Comments: (this is where you put emerge --info)


Not eligible to see or edit group visibility for this bug.






View Bug Activity   |   Format For Printing   |   XML   |   Clone This Bug

Description:   Opened: 2005-05-08 13:57 0000 
Hello there,

dev-libs/quantlib introduced a dependency on dev-libs/boost and I was forced to drop keywords on alpha, hppa and mips.
I would like to know if boost can be keyworded if it works in those arches.

Thanks

------- Comment #1 From Disenchanted (RETIRED) 2005-05-20 23:31:20 0000 ------- 
boost should work on any system with a sane toolchain, hoping to hear from the
arch teams on this

------- Comment #2 From Fernando J. Pereda (RETIRED) 2005-05-29 13:07:06 0000 ------- 
Both of them re-keyworded ~alpha

Cheers,
Ferdy

------- Comment #3 From Grant Goodyear 2005-06-22 07:50:30 0000 ------- 
Speaking of which, can we start keywording 1.32.0-r* stable?  I'll verify on
amd64 and x86.

------- Comment #4 From Gregorio Guidi (RETIRED) 2005-06-22 13:58:04 0000 ------- 
Speaking of which, too, we are interested in having boost-1.32 marked stable 
to mark KDE 3.4 stable, do you think it can happen soon? 
Setting a blocker on bug 94223.

------- Comment #5 From Disenchanted (RETIRED) 2005-07-01 15:56:17 0000 ------- 
i see no reason not to keyword it stable
this is actually me looking through the open boost bugs to determine if there is
anything but feature requests
even one bug requesting bjam to be installed is more of a feature request, i
will finish checking bugs then marking stable

------- Comment #6 From Disenchanted (RETIRED) 2005-07-06 21:05:49 0000 ------- 
ok, don't hold your breath, one of the deps icc, aparently wont see a stable
ic8.x and they will wait and push icc9

so no stable kde 3.4.x too soon if you need boost 1.32.0 , the other two deps
should be able to be stabelized with some polite poking of g2boojum maybe

just fyi

------- Comment #7 From Marcelo Goes 2005-07-06 21:23:10 0000 ------- 
Daniel,

Maybe a separate ebuild without an icc USE flag can be stabilized in the meanwhile?

------- Comment #8 From Aaron Walker (RETIRED) 2005-08-05 21:02:21 0000 ------- 
Added ~mips.

------- Comment #9 From Gregorio Guidi (RETIRED) 2005-08-21 10:04:53 0000 ------- 
Any news wrt comments #6 and #7?

------- Comment #10 From Rutger ter Borg 2005-10-09 05:05:39 0000 ------- 
 
any news with respect to #6, #7 and #9?

------- Comment #11 From Disenchanted (RETIRED) 2005-10-25 13:23:03 0000 ------- 
the latest news is that i don't even know if there will be a stable icc9 or
not,
worst case USE=icc would have to be deprecated then

------- Comment #12 From Disenchanted (RETIRED) 2005-10-25 21:00:41 0000 ------- 
icc support deprecated, now ebuild can go through usual process for
stabelization

------- Comment #13 From Disenchanted (RETIRED) 2005-11-06 07:57:59 0000 ------- 
using this existing bug to ask the archs to stable 1.33.0-r1 instead of
creating
a new one

------- Comment #14 From Gustavo Zacarias (RETIRED) 2005-11-09 04:56:27 0000 ------- 
sparc boosted!

------- Comment #15 From Jeroen Roovers 2006-01-21 08:08:56 0000 ------- 
Removing hppa as keywording appears to be fine and has been for a while. Feel
free to re-CC if this change seems inappropriate.

------- Comment #16 From Disenchanted (RETIRED) 2006-01-29 10:30:03 0000 ------- 
correct me if i'm wrong, but this should be taken care of

------- Comment #17 From Marcelo Goes 2006-01-29 10:47:26 0000 ------- 
As far as I am concerned, it is. :-)
First Last Prev Next    No search results available      Search page      Enter new bug