F24 System Wide Change: Fedora 24 Boost 1.60 uplift

[Jan Kurik]

= System Wide Change: Fedora 24 Boost 1.60 uplift =
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/F24Boost160

Change owner(s):
* Jonathan Wakely < jwakely AT redhat DOT com >

This change brings Boost 1.60.0 to Fedora 24. This will mean F24 ships
with the latest upstream Boost release.

== Detailed Description ==
The aim is to synchronize Fedora with the most recent Boost release.
Because ABI stability is one of explicit Boost non-goals, this entails
rebuilding of all dependent packages. This has also always entailed
yours truly assisting maintainers of client packages in decoding
cryptic boostese seen in output from g++. Such care is to be expected
this time around as well.

Boost 1.60 is scheduled for release on 2 Dec 2015 and a beta release
is already available for testing

The equivalent changes for previous releases were Fedora 22 Change and
Fedora 23 Change.

== Scope ==

Proposal owners:
* Build will be done with Boost.Build v2 (which is upstream-sanctioned
way of building Boost)
* Request a "f24-boost" build system tag (discussion):
https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/6235 → f24-boost
* Build boost into that tag (take a look at the build #606493 for inspiration)
* Post a request for rebuilds to fedora-devel (XXX link to
fedora-devel message here)
* Work on rebuilding dependent packages in the tag.
* When most is done, re-tag all the packages to rawhide
* Watch fedora-devel and assist in rebuilding broken Boost clients (by
fixing the client, or Boost).

In order to discover any problems ASAP the proposal owner has created
a COPR and built the Boost 1.60.0 beta, and started rebuilding the
300+ dependent packages. The results of this COPR will be thrown away,
but it means any bugs in the upstream release can be reported and
fixed before the final release (rather than patched in the Fedora
package) and any changes needed in dependent packages will be known
sooner.

Other developers:
Those who depend on Boost DSOs will have to rebuild their packages.
Feature owners will alleviate some of this work as indicated above,
and will assist those whose packages fail to build in debugging them.
The proposal owner has already started test rebuilds of affected
packages and identifying the needed changes, and will propose patches
to Boost upstream or to the client packages' upstreams as appropriate.

Release engineering:
* Side tag creation.

List of deliverables:
* All deliverables will include updated Boost packages

Policies and guidelines:
* Apart from scope, this is business as usual, so no policies, no guidelines.

Trademark approval:
* N/A (not needed for this Change)

[Jan Kurik]

I am re-sending this Change announcement to the devel@ list, as due to
the migration of mailinglists the original announcement [1] has
reached only devel-announce@ mailing list and has never been forwarded
to the devel@ list.

[1] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel-announce%40lists.fedorap...

Regards,
Jan

On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 9:24 AM, Jan Kurik  wrote:
> = System Wide Change: Fedora 24 Boost 1.60 uplift =
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/F24Boost160
>
> Change owner(s):
> Jonathan Wakely < jwakely AT redhat DOT com >
>
> This change brings Boost 1.60.0 to Fedora 24. This will mean F24 ships
> with the latest upstream Boost release.
>
> == Detailed Description ==
> The aim is to synchronize Fedora with the most recent Boost release.
> Because ABI stability is one of explicit Boost non-goals, this entails
> rebuilding of all dependent packages. This has also always entailed
> yours truly assisting maintainers of client packages in decoding
> cryptic boostese seen in output from g++. Such care is to be expected
> this time around as well.
>
> Boost 1.60 is scheduled for release on 2 Dec 2015 and a beta release
> is already available for testing
>
> The equivalent changes for previous releases were Fedora 22 Change and
> Fedora 23 Change.
>
> == Scope ==
>
> Proposal owners:
> Build will be done with Boost.Build v2 (which is upstream-sanctioned
>
> way of building Boost)
> Request a "f24-boost" build system tag (discussion):
>
> https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/6235 → f24-boost
> Build boost into that tag (take a look at the build #606493 for inspiration)
> Post a request for rebuilds to fedora-devel (XXX link to
>
> fedora-devel message here)
> Work on rebuilding dependent packages in the tag.
> When most is done, re-tag all the packages to rawhide
> Watch fedora-devel and assist in rebuilding broken Boost clients (by
>
> fixing the client, or Boost).
>
> In order to discover any problems ASAP the proposal owner has created
> a COPR and built the Boost 1.60.0 beta, and started rebuilding the
> 300+ dependent packages. The results of this COPR will be thrown away,
> but it means any bugs in the upstream release can be reported and
> fixed before the final release (rather than patched in the Fedora
> package) and any changes needed in dependent packages will be known
> sooner.
>
> Other developers:
> Those who depend on Boost DSOs will have to rebuild their packages.
> Feature owners will alleviate some of this work as indicated above,
> and will assist those whose packages fail to build in debugging them.
> The proposal owner has already started test rebuilds of affected
> packages and identifying the needed changes, and will propose patches
> to Boost upstream or to the client packages' upstreams as appropriate.
>
> Release engineering:
> Side tag creation.
>
> List of deliverables:
> All deliverables will include updated Boost packages
>
> Policies and guidelines:
> Apart from scope, this is business as usual, so no policies, no guidelines.
>
> Trademark approval:
> N/A (not needed for this Change)
>
> --
> Jan Kuřík
> Platform & Fedora Program Manager
> Red Hat Czech s.r.o., Purkynova 99/71, 612 45 Brno, Czech Republic

[Tom Hughes]

On 27/11/15 08:32, Jan Kurik wrote:
> I am re-sending this Change announcement to the devel@ list, as due to
> the migration of mailinglists the original announcement [1] has
> reached only devel-announce@ mailing list and has never been forwarded
> to the devel@ list.

That's not actually true. It arrived via devel just fine, as did your 
message the other day where you said the same thing.
> [1] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel-announce%40lists.fedorap...

Here's the devel version:

https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail]/...

Tom

[Jan Kurik]

On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 9:47 AM, Tom Hughes  wrote:
> On 27/11/15 08:32, Jan Kurik wrote:
> > I am re-sending this Change announcement to the devel@ list, as due to
> > the migration of mailinglists the original announcement [1] has
> > reached only devel-announce@ mailing list and has never been forwarded
> > to the devel@ list.
>
> That's not actually true. It arrived via devel just fine, as did your
> message the other day where you said the same thing.
> > [1]
> > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel-announce%40lists.fedorap...
>
> Here's the devel version:
>
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail]/...

This is ^^^ the version I re-sent today. However the original version
sent to the devel-announce@ list has been sent a week ago.
Now it seems to work and emails from devel-announce@ are forwarded to
devel@. However it was not the case a week ago. and that is why I
re-sent it once more, to be sure it reach all the people who might be
interested in it.

Regards,
Jan
> Tom
>
> --
> Tom Hughes ([e-mail])
> http://compton.nu/
> --
> devel mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/[e-mail]

[Richard W.M. Jones]

On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 09:24:21AM +0100, Jan Kurik wrote:
> = System Wide Change: Fedora 24 Boost 1.60 uplift =

Does this mean "upgrade" or "update"?

Rich.

[Jonathan Wakely]

On 28/11/15 20:05 +0000, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 09:24:21AM +0100, Jan Kurik wrote:
> > = System Wide Change: Fedora 24 Boost 1.60 uplift =
>
> Does this mean "upgrade" or "update"?

I just copied that from the previous change proposals, but I'm not
sure what the difference between update and upgrade is in this
context.

Which should be it be?

[Richard W.M. Jones]

On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 02:57:53PM +0000, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 28/11/15 20:05 +0000, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 09:24:21AM +0100, Jan Kurik wrote:
> > > = System Wide Change: Fedora 24 Boost 1.60 uplift =
> >
> > Does this mean "upgrade" or "update"?
>
> I just copied that from the previous change proposals, but I'm not
> sure what the difference between update and upgrade is in this
> context.
>
> Which should be it be?

I mean why call an update to a package an "uplift"?

Rich.

[Richard W.M. Jones]

On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 09:15:38PM +0000, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 02:57:53PM +0000, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > On 28/11/15 20:05 +0000, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > > On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 09:24:21AM +0100, Jan Kurik wrote:
> > > > = System Wide Change: Fedora 24 Boost 1.60 uplift =
> > >
> > > Does this mean "upgrade" or "update"?
> >
> > I just copied that from the previous change proposals, but I'm not
> > sure what the difference between update and upgrade is in this
> > context.
> >
> > Which should be it be?
>
> I mean why call an update to a package an "uplift"?

Let me reconsider this reply, since I don't know if you're a
native English speaker.

"uplift" is a rather pretentious word which means a raising to a
higher intellectual or spiritual level
(https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/uplift has links to the definition in
other languages on the left hand column).

"upgrade" or "update" (pretty much the same thing) would be the normal
way to describe a simple updated version of some software, which I
think is more appropriate here.

Rich.

[Jonathan Wakely]

[I've dropped devel-announce from the CC]

On 01/12/15 21:22 +0000, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 09:15:38PM +0000, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 02:57:53PM +0000, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > > On 28/11/15 20:05 +0000, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 09:24:21AM +0100, Jan Kurik wrote:
> > > > > = System Wide Change: Fedora 24 Boost 1.60 uplift =
> > > >
> > > > Does this mean "upgrade" or "update"?
> > >
> > > I just copied that from the previous change proposals, but I'm not
> > > sure what the difference between update and upgrade is in this
> > > context.
> > >
> > > Which should be it be?
> >
> > I mean why call an update to a package an "uplift"?

That doesn't answer my question ;-)
> Let me reconsider this reply, since I don't know if you're a
> native English speaker.
>
> "uplift" is a rather pretentious word which means a raising to a
> higher intellectual or spiritual level
> (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/uplift has links to the definition in
> other languages on the left hand column).
>
> "upgrade" or "update" (pretty much the same thing) would be the normal
> way to describe a simple updated version of some software, which I
> think is more appropriate here.

Agreed. Your original question was ambiguous, thanks to English. I
took it for granted that "uplift" was inappropriate and read your
question as "Does this mean upgrade or does this mean update?" which
is why I said I don't know what the difference would be in this
context.

What you meant was "Does this mean one of upgrade or update, rather
than uplift?" and the answer is yes, but I asked which one of upgrade
or update it should be.

If it doesn't matter I'll just pick one and use that for future Boost
update proposals (I seem to have picked one already ;-)

Do you want the wiki page for the current proposal changed?

[Björn Persson]

Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> What you meant was "Does this mean one of upgrade or update, rather
> than uplift?" and the answer is yes, but I asked which one of upgrade
> or update it should be.
>
> If it doesn't matter I'll just pick one and use that for future Boost
> update proposals (I seem to have picked one already ;-)

For what it's worth, this is how I use the words:

If it's new data, rather than code, then it's an update. It brings you
up to date with the latest available information. Examples are updated
virus signatures for a virus scanner, and Time Zone Database updates
with the latest data on politicians' fiddling with the clocks around
the world.

If it's a new release that only fixes security holes, then it's also an
update. It brings you up to date with the latest knowledge about
security holes.

If it's a major release with new prominent features, then it's an
upgrade. It brings you software of a higher "grade" in some sense
(although all too often it can feel like a downgrade when there's
workflow breakage or an assortment of new bugs).

Between these clear-cut cases lies a grey area where "upgrade" and
"update" are more or less interchangeable.

Björn Persson

[Reindl Harald]

Am 01.12.2015 um 22:15 schrieb Richard W.M. Jones:
> On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 02:57:53PM +0000, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > On 28/11/15 20:05 +0000, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > > On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 09:24:21AM +0100, Jan Kurik wrote:
> > > > = System Wide Change: Fedora 24 Boost 1.60 uplift =
> > >
> > > Does this mean "upgrade" or "update"?
> >
> > I just copied that from the previous change proposals, but I'm not
> > sure what the difference between update and upgrade is in this
> > context.
> >
> > Which should be it be?
>
> I mean why call an update to a package an "uplift"?

ask that the DNF developers which deprecated "update" to replace with 
"upgrade" :-)

Update Command
        dnf [options] update
               Deprecated alias for the Upgrade Command.