On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 9:35 AM, kefu chai <tchaikov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 4:27 PM, Nathan Cutler <ncutler@xxxxxxx> wrote: >>> my main concern would be the downstream. how shall we accommodate the >>> packaging of downstream? for example, what if the boost package >>> maintainers of SuSE/fedora/debian/ubuntu are not ready to package the >>> boost version we want to use in future? >>> >>> but as long as we don't require newer boost to build, we are safe on >>> debian and ubuntu at this moment. as boost 1.61 is required for >>> building ceph, and both debian unstable and ubuntu artful package >>> boost v1.62. >> >> >> The very latest cutting-edge versions of the distros may ship boost >= 1.61 >> but the stable versions most likely do not. > > yeah. but, IIRC, debian stable does not accepts new packages unless > they contain critical bug fixes. the new packages will go to the > unstable or experimental distribution first. so, presumably, debian > will be fine. guess ubuntu is using similar strategy for including > packages in its LTS distros. Why are you concerned with distros and the availability to have a package at the version that we need? We publish our own repos, where we could have whatever boost version we need. Distro package maintainers have to decide what they can or can't do. For us it shouldn't matter. > >> >> For luminous we (SUSE) need to support the latest stable versions of >> openSUSE and SLE, i.e. Leap 42.3 and SLE-12-SP3. Both of these come with >> boost 1.54. > > yeah, then we need to package libboost in one way or another. > >> >> Nathan > > > > -- > Regards > Kefu Chai -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
