boost: update to 1.79.0.#36204
Closed
JamiKettunen wants to merge 6 commits into
Closed
Conversation
ahesford
reviewed
Mar 18, 2022
JamiKettunen
force-pushed
the
boost-1.79.0
branch
7 times, most recently
from
cda05f0 to
b74d689
Compare
Contributor
|
It's definitely not okay to remove the subpackages, it seems this is a bug in boost. The libraries are being built, but only their headers and cmake files get installed. |
Contributor
|
Are the problems still there with 1.79 proper (not beta1)? A quick "diff -r" says there are plenty of differences between the two, but my laptop is almost certainly too weak to try to compile it myself. |
JamiKettunen
force-pushed
the
boost-1.79.0
branch
from
b74d689 to
52cb0d9
Compare
JamiKettunen
force-pushed
the
boost-1.79.0
branch
6 times, most recently
from
fae26d1 to
8b7845e
Compare
JamiKettunen
force-pushed
the
boost-1.79.0
branch
from
8b7845e to
9f2ef4c
Compare
This is most certainly a broken updated packaging for now... probably just needs a bunch of new dependencies to even build anything useful while if it doesn't find anything it just builds the bare minimum (e.g. docs), annoying behavior...
JamiKettunen
force-pushed
the
boost-1.79.0
branch
from
871db95 to
6f0d033
Compare
WIP because upstream should really make a new release, packaging tip of dev branch just to be able to build is kind of dumb. This also seemed to fix cross builds as tested from x86_64-musl host to aarch64-musl target.
Also fixes update checking and compile against boost 1.79. [ci skip] the PR is still WIP
JamiKettunen
force-pushed
the
boost-1.79.0
branch
from
6f0d033 to
1bc1da0
Compare
Contributor
cryfs builds succeed with boost-1.79.0 |
Member
|
can we look into removing the python2 boost subpkg? it seems there's currently nothing using it |
Contributor
Author
|
Closing in favor of #38949. |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
7 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
[ci skip]
Packages to fix (from
xrevshlib boostas locally build-tested onx86_64-musl)do_build()) - awaiting new upstream release, tip ofdevbranch buildsdo_build()) - backported upstream boost 1.79 compile fixes to v2.4.2do_build())do_build())do_build())do_build())do_build(), updating to v3.10.2.0 appears to have disabled building a lot of components including all shared objects and pkg-config files for example, probably just a bunch of missing new "optional" build-time dependencies...)gnuradio)do_build())do_build())do_build())do_build())libbitcoin-system)libbitcoin-database)libbitcoin-blockchain)libbitcoin-blockchain)libbitcoin-system)libbitcoin-protocol)libbitcoin-client)libbitcoin-system)do_build(), appears to need-std=c++17or higher?NUM3Parser.cpp:46:8: error: 'for_each' is not a member of 'std')libetonyek)do_build())do_build())do_build())do_build())do_check(), test process pinned one core at 100% for 10 minutes)leatherman)do_check())do_check(), 90/97 test_web_seed_http stuck for 10 minutes)do_check())do_check())Packages to fix (from
xrevshlib uhdas locally build-tested onx86_64-musl)do_check()even after addingcheckdepends="python3-pip")Modified patches (boost)
exec_file.patch: Removed due to being upstream as boostorg/python@d9f0605mips.patch: Updated to apply on top of boostorg/fiber@5dc9dab, not sure if this can be removed now(?)Misc changes
boostso that the versioned name doesn't conflict with other numbers and are consistent with the previously existingboost-python3-1.72, e.g.libboost_math_c991.72is nowlibboost_math_c99-1.79(notice the-!)Testing the changes