2016-11-12 20:15 GMT+01:00 Michael Steinberg <michste...@gmail.com>: > Hi all, > >>> 1. Boost 1.61 compatibility and bugfix? >>> 2. Release version string. >>> >>> Should the release should include the boost 1.61 fix. It was discussed >>> in: >>> [Kicad-developers] About Bug 1604841: Pcbnew crash at moving via, and >>> boost::context fixes to make it compatible with boost 1.61 >>> >>> And there is a patch in [1], although it does not explicitly state >>> where it is from, but it looks similar to [2] and [3]. With out the >>> patch in [1] I can not build it against boost 1.62 on archlinux. >>> [...] >>> >>> [1]https://git.archlinux.org/svntogit/community.git/tree/trunk/boost-1.61.patch?h=packages/kicad >>> >>> [2]https://git.launchpad.net/kicad/commit/?id=06d4894fdbeb00727cdcc667b8899ad73d8eb1c2 >>> >>> [3]https://git.launchpad.net/kicad/commit/?id=78bc3c65de6c03d19be9902327d08cd4d87c229c > > Regarding patches 1-3: > > I'm still here reading mostly and supporting those patches, just that I've > been busy finding a job and a project is going on too. So in short, these > three patches, although commited individually actually belong together in > the retrospective. Nothing has changed with regard to the fact that the > public interface of boost::context requires c++11 compilation beginning with > boost version 1.61, that's why it was decided to not apply them to stable > back then. > > The now-encapsulated-and-moved-to-detail parts of boost::context that Kicad > uses for boost versions < 1.61 are actually still there, so it might be > possible to use those, but it might also be the case that it's not possible > to hide the c++11 header parts from the compiler when using them. Not even > considering I think it would *really* not be a wise decision to rely on > implementation details, especially looking into the future. > > I think it would be best to just tell people they need to use a recent > compiler (and the according standard switch) if they also want to use a > recent boost and apply these patches to stable, iff there is a growing > demand/complain-rate. But I will also try to help/assist/... finding a > different solution, if it is in demand. > > Cheers! > Michael >
Thank you, Micahel, for the explanation. Now I do remember that we probably did not apply them to stable becasue of the C++11 not being a requirement for 4.0 series. I think it is perfectly ok keep it that way and only let packagers who do have a newer system to apply those patches locally if that is what we want to do. But in that case I guess we should add that to the guidelines to the packagers. Nick _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp