Is boost 1.46.1 in rawhide for real?

[Petr Machata]

Bruno Wolff III <bruno at wolff.to> writes:

> On Wed, Apr 06, 2011 at 16:18:34 +0200,
>   Petr Machata <pmachata at redhat.com> wrote:
>> Bruno Wolff III <bruno at wolff.to> writes:
>> 
>> > I don't remember seeing a soname bump announcement for boost and since
>> > for branched it went from 1.46.0 to 1.46.1 and then back to 1.46.0, I don't
>> > want to start rebuilding stuff if this is going to happen in rawhide too.
>> 
>> It's not our plan te revert this in rawhide, but we plan to rebase again
>> later in the cycle, probably for 1.48.  I see that nothing has been
>> rebuilt against 1.46.1 yet, so what I could do is keep the patchlevel
>> and just drop the SONAME back to 1.46.0.  The changes between 1.46.0 and
>> 1.46.1 _should_ be safe--not quite safe enough for pushing to F15, in my
>> opinion, but rawhide has seen worse.  That way boost users shouldn't
>> have to rebuild twice.
>
> I don't have a problem rebuilding twice. I'd like to get a heads up that
> a soname bump is comming, rather than finding out after the fact. This makes
> scheduling the work a bit easier. Boost is used by enough stuff, that I think
> a heads up to devel is warranted.
>
> In this particular case I was concerned, because of the previous reversion in
> F15 and didn't want to make things worse by starting rebuilds before I
> knew this change was going to stick.

Yes, the soname bump in F15 was done by mistake, and obviously the
testing caught that, so it was reverted right away.

The bump in F16 was the result of the same mistake, but there I thought
it might as well stay.  Except I should have mailed to devel list about
it, I'm sorry I didn't.

So 1.46.1 is there for real, later to be replaced most probably by
1.48.0, or whatever the upstream manages to finish in the mean time.

PM