Re: Boost 1.37 released!
Guys, Due to problem with driveway.com I've filed another PR, specified previous PR id (named "update devel/boost") and new file locations. I hope this will help to resolve the issue. Alexander Churanov ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Boost 1.37 released!
Hi folks! I've just picked up new places to share files: devel-boost-from-1.34.1-to-1.37.diff.txt : http://www.flyupload.com/?fid=712178626 http://www.gigasize.com/get.php?d=gdgsc7nnr8c http://rapidshare.com/files/168020620/devel-boost-from-1.34.1-to-1.37.diff.txt.html boost-port-1_37_0.tar.bz2: http://www.flyupload.com/?fid=769359286 http://www.gigasize.com/get.php?d=1tfgzpy08nb http://rapidshare.com/files/168021718/boost-port-1_37_0.tar.bz2.html I hope this is useful. Alexander Churanov ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Boost 1.37 released!
On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 02:04:22AM +0300, Alexander Churanov wrote: > Hi folks! > > This is a status update on porting boost-1.37. It is finished. Port builds, > installs and deinstalls correctly. Currently I have a patch and port > tarball. Files can be downloaded from: > > boost-port-1_37_0.tar.bz2 - http://www.driveway.com/w1d2c5l7t4 > > devel-boost-from-1.34.1-to-1.37.diff.txt - > http://www.driveway.com/m0a2x8z0v9 > > Unfortunately, I was unable to send a PR, because diff is about 1Mb - > devel/boost has too many files :-) Does anybody know how to request an > update like this? Put the diff online somewhere and put a link to it in the PR. Please note the size of it so a committer is not surprised when he downloads such a large diff. Thanks for taking this on. It is something which has been discussed before and has never come to fruition. -- WXS ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Boost 1.37 released!
Hi folks! This is a status update on porting boost-1.37. It is finished. Port builds, installs and deinstalls correctly. Currently I have a patch and port tarball. Files can be downloaded from: boost-port-1_37_0.tar.bz2 - http://www.driveway.com/w1d2c5l7t4 devel-boost-from-1.34.1-to-1.37.diff.txt - http://www.driveway.com/m0a2x8z0v9 Unfortunately, I was unable to send a PR, because diff is about 1Mb - devel/boost has too many files :-) Does anybody know how to request an update like this? How patch was tested: 1) verified that port builds, installs and cleanly deinstalls. 2) verified that port builds, installs and cleanly deinstalls with "WITH_PYTHON=yes and WITH_PYSTE=yes" flags. 3) verified that some applications (my own works in progress) using 1.34 compile if 1.37 is installed. Applications use Boost.Assign, Boost.Bind, Boost.Operators, Boost.PointerContainer, Boost.ProgramOptions, Boost.Range, and Boost.Test libraries. This can be viewed as a very basic test for boost libraries. What was not verified: 1) That devel/boost-build is usable. 2) That any application (from ports collection) that depend on devel/boost can be built with 1.37 version. 3) That boost regression suite executes successfully. Actually, at present it's not clear how to perform this, I have problems with running boost regression testing suite. Probably, it is possible to discuss this with boost developers. Alexander Churanov ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Boost 1.37 released!
Andrea, OK, after finishing with currently mutually exclusive "Boost without Python" and "Boost with Python" ports I will try to create "Base libraries from Boost" port and complementary "Boost.Python bridge" ports. Alexander Churanov 2008/11/24 Andrea Venturoli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Alexander Churanov ha scritto: > > ... To my mind suggested approach would simplify understanding of how >> to install boost. The user would ask a question like 'should I add python >> to >> my boost installation' instead of 'is my boost built with python support >> or >> not'. >> > > Sounds like a good idea to me. > > bye & Thanks >av. > ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Boost 1.37 released!
Alexander Churanov ha scritto: ... To my mind suggested approach would simplify understanding of how to install boost. The user would ask a question like 'should I add python to my boost installation' instead of 'is my boost built with python support or not'. Sounds like a good idea to me. bye & Thanks av. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Boost 1.37 released!
Hi folks! This is a status update on boost-1.37 porting. Currently port builds, installs and removes successfully. However, a PR is not filed, because I've suddenly discovered the way 'boost-python' port works. So, I've decided to take additional time for verifying that 'boost-python' is OK. I suspect that at present at least pkg-plist is not complete. My estimate for completing the work is is 2-3 days from now. For the future, I'd like to discuss the possibility of breaking boost into pieces and installing them separately. The 'devel/boost-jam' port would install bjam, the 'devel/boost/' port would install all but python-related stuff, the 'devel/boost-python' port would add pyhon stuff to existing boost installation, and 'devel/boost-build' would do something simiar to what it does now. To my mind suggested approach would simplify understanding of how to install boost. The user would ask a question like 'should I add python to my boost installation' instead of 'is my boost built with python support or not'. The only drawback I see is that several ports would require the same source tarball. For people interested in trying new port early current port tarball is placed at http://www.driveway.com/n2g6d8k2m0 Alexander Churanov ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Boost 1.37 released!
OK, I'll send a PR. Alexander Churanov ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Boost 1.37 released!
If you are reasonably confident that the port will work, and that there are no glaring errors, why not file a PR now, and then set to work checking things? It will probably take a few days to process the PR anyway, because there is a backlog, and because committers are cautious about making changes that might affect other ports during the "slush" before 6.4/7.1 release (they may even wait until after the slush is over to make any changes), and in the intervening time you will have an opportunity to look for smaller mistakes and send in follow-up messages if you find any. Also, other people will have an opportunity to test the proposed port, and submit comments. Regards, b. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Boost 1.37 released!
Hi folks! I've finished with the first phase of porting boost-1.37:package builds, installs, and deinstalls correctly. The remaining tasks are to ensure how it behaves in different environments and without optional components. Boost.Python is not tested. The question is "what to do next?". I see several possibilities: 1) Send a PR and hope that everything is OK. Fix issues after they actually happen. 2) Devote time to verifying that libraries actually work on different supported versions of FreeBSD. Also verify that they work with different sets of optional components and that port correctly handles dependencies. The first can be performed right now. I already have the tarball. The seconds can take additional week or more. Please, reccommend appropriate way to finish with this. Alexander Churanov ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Boost 1.37 released!
Hi folks! I'm glad to announce that I have working patch that makes possible to build boost-1.37 on FreeBSD. At present, I am investigating into port for boost-1.34 in order to create a working port for 1.37 with no regressions. Three things do not enable boost to compile out-of-box: First is the math library. It uses c99 and SUSv3 long double functions that are absent in 6.2-RELEASE and 7.0-RELEASE (for example. sinhl() ). I've checked out CURRENT source and found these functions, so probably 8.0-RELEASE would not suffer of this issue. The second is the test framework. Authors made error reports more detailed and rely on UNIX 03 features that provide information about the reason why a signal was delivered (see siginfo_t::si_code). FreeBSD 6.x does not comply with this in full and some signal-specific codes are missing. This is however, not a problem for 7.x branch - as I know all necessary constants are in place. The solution for the second issue is obvious: make error reporting in Boost.Test more coarse-grained on 6.x. I mean report that SIGILL was received, but do not tell what exactly has happened. My patch does exactly that. The Boost.Math issue is more complicated since we have either to disable the whole math library or to disable the part of it that deals with std::sinhl(), etc. A more expensive option is to drop support for particular long double variants of functions. Could anybody comment on that? Alexander Churanov ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Boost 1.37 released!
On 2008-Nov-05 09:52:12 -0600, Jeremy Messenger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 03:13:33 -0600, Flex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Also please note that http://home.leo.org isn't accessible anymore. > >Yeah, two people have told me about that URL is dead. Too bad, I don't >have this file anymore. Depending on how long it was up, it might have been grabbed by the Internet Archive Wayback Machine. It's not there right now but the FAQ says "it generally takes 6 months or more for pages to appear". That URL looks like the "member's area" of an ISP - it's also possible that LEO just renamed (rather than removed) the site. -- Peter Jeremy Please excuse any delays as the result of my ISP's inability to implement an MTA that is either RFC2821-compliant or matches their claimed behaviour. pgpQ0zEF1sgAm.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Boost 1.37 released!
On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 03:13:33 -0600, Flex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I also agree with you Jeremy. devel/boost-devel makes no sense as it is a stable and not a development version.When there are so much ports that depend on devel/boost (as version 1.34) then I see two approaches to solve this. 1.) Try to find out if boost 1.37 is binary compatible with boost 1.34. If so, then we could update it to the actual version without breaking the ports depending on it, IMHO. I made this a question to the boost irc channel and got only the answer that this is doubtable so far. The binary compatible does not matter as it only forces us to wait until complete unfreeze. We can bump all of other ports to get rebuild. What about the API (source) compatible? It's more important than ABI (binary) compatible as we need to make sure others can build with newer boost. 2.) We should think of one or two alternative boost port(s) like devel/boost137 and devel/boost138. All depending ports must be made dependant to devel/boost137 then. Other ports also keep two ports with their (often major) release numbers and switch dependent ports back and forth to the right port release number. We don't need devel/boost137 either if all other ports can build with newer boost or easy to get others fix with newer boost. We should avoid two same exactly libraries in ports tree if they don't do the parallel installation (non-conflict) as possible unless no choice to do two or more. I'd prefer the second because there are less side effects and problems possible. Also please note that http://home.leo.org isn't accessible anymore. Hopefully someone, preferrably Alexander, has the 1.35 patch from Simon to check whether it's easy to bump the port to 1.37 easily. I also agree to send a PR. Yeah, two people have told me about that URL is dead. Too bad, I don't have this file anymore. Cheers, Mezz /Flex -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] - [EMAIL PROTECTED] FreeBSD GNOME Team http://www.FreeBSD.org/gnome/ - [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Boost 1.37 released!
I also agree with you Jeremy. devel/boost-devel makes no sense as it is a stable and not a development version.When there are so much ports that depend on devel/boost (as version 1.34) then I see two approaches to solve this. 1.) Try to find out if boost 1.37 is binary compatible with boost 1.34. If so, then we could update it to the actual version without breaking the ports depending on it, IMHO. I made this a question to the boost irc channel and got only the answer that this is doubtable so far. 2.) We should think of one or two alternative boost port(s) like devel/boost137 and devel/boost138. All depending ports must be made dependant to devel/boost137 then. Other ports also keep two ports with their (often major) release numbers and switch dependent ports back and forth to the right port release number. I'd prefer the second because there are less side effects and problems possible. Also please note that http://home.leo.org isn't accessible anymore. Hopefully someone, preferrably Alexander, has the 1.35 patch from Simon to check whether it's easy to bump the port to 1.37 easily. I also agree to send a PR. /Flex ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Boost 1.37 released!
On Mon, 03 Nov 2008 17:29:42 -0600, Emanuel Haupt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Emanuel, Copying devel/boost to devel/boost-devel sounds reasonable. However, I'd like to suggest moving devel/boost to devel/boost-134 and having devel/boost updated to 1.37. For me '-devel' is always felt like something not stable enough. Another concern is that maintaners of ports that depend on boost would probably slow down the process of updating to 1.37. Forking to old version contains element of intention - it's more clear that devel/boost-134 is something out of date and temporary. This would involve much more initial work. We have many -devel ports that are actually just more recent versions. Once there is a working 1.37 port either people will start moving to 1.37, bringing the new version to each maintainers attention would help. At some point devel/boost will become 1.37 and devel/boost-devel will then either be removed or updated to a never version. I disagree with boost-devel; it's no need when the 1.37 is stable. Anyway, while you guys are working on patch, I would like you guys to use barner's patch over at http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/2008-May/048612.html .. The most important part is: -- Features: - boost and boost-python no longer conflict (boost-python just adds the missing bits) [...] -- That is what we need the most. Cheers, Mezz Emanuel -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] - [EMAIL PROTECTED] FreeBSD GNOME Team http://www.FreeBSD.org/gnome/ - [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Boost 1.37 released!
> Emanuel, > > Copying devel/boost to devel/boost-devel sounds reasonable. > > However, I'd like to suggest moving devel/boost to devel/boost-134 and > having devel/boost updated to 1.37. For me '-devel' is always felt like > something not stable enough. Another concern is that maintaners of ports > that depend on boost would probably slow down the process of updating to > 1.37. Forking to old version contains element of intention - it's more clear > that devel/boost-134 is something out of date and temporary. This would involve much more initial work. We have many -devel ports that are actually just more recent versions. Once there is a working 1.37 port either people will start moving to 1.37, bringing the new version to each maintainers attention would help. At some point devel/boost will become 1.37 and devel/boost-devel will then either be removed or updated to a never version. Emanuel ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Boost 1.37 released!
Emanuel, Copying devel/boost to devel/boost-devel sounds reasonable. However, I'd like to suggest moving devel/boost to devel/boost-134 and having devel/boost updated to 1.37. For me '-devel' is always felt like something not stable enough. Another concern is that maintaners of ports that depend on boost would probably slow down the process of updating to 1.37. Forking to old version contains element of intention - it's more clear that devel/boost-134 is something out of date and temporary. Alexander Churanov ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Boost 1.37 released!
> It's also disappoints me that there is only year-old boost library in ports > tree. I've already offered my help to Simon (see > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/2008-September/050846.html). > I have time, equipment, experience and will for assisting in porting latest > stable boost into the ports tree. > > After I've posted into the mailing list, people started to contact me and > ask whether I know what's happened to boost port. For that reason I've send > an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] at October, 14, offering my help second > time. And still do not have an answer. > > So then, I insist on contacting Simon using other ways than > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and starting a discussion about approaches for speeding > up this porting task. Eventually we could repocopy devel/boost to devel/boost-devel then update devel/boost-devel to 1.37 and have maintainers (and the community) decide whether they like to adapt their ports to the current version. If anyone can submit a working boost 1.37 port (preferably a patch against devel/boost) I'd be glad to take over that task. Emanuel ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Boost 1.37 released!
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Alexander Churanov wrote: | Emanuel, | | It's also disappoints me that there is only year-old boost library in ports | tree. I've already offered my help to Simon (see | http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/2008-September/050846.html). | I have time, equipment, experience and will for assisting in porting latest | stable boost into the ports tree. | | After I've posted into the mailing list, people started to contact me and | ask whether I know what's happened to boost port. For that reason I've send | an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] at October, 14, offering my help second | time. And still do not have an answer. | | So then, I insist on contacting Simon using other ways than | [EMAIL PROTECTED] and starting a discussion about approaches for speeding | up this porting task. I suggest that you send in a PR. If the maintainer ignores it too long someone will step-in and eventually commit it. | | Alexander Churanov - -- Pietro Cerutti [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP Public Key: http://gahr.ch/pgp -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (FreeBSD) iEYEAREKAAYFAkkPbA8ACgkQwMJqmJVx946MsgCgoMHl0QYvyeM7z8k6v8vsN8KU QXcAnR2VeFhx+DYDZaESCWxGQePU13Wf =nPI4 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Boost 1.37 released!
Emanuel, It's also disappoints me that there is only year-old boost library in ports tree. I've already offered my help to Simon (see http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/2008-September/050846.html). I have time, equipment, experience and will for assisting in porting latest stable boost into the ports tree. After I've posted into the mailing list, people started to contact me and ask whether I know what's happened to boost port. For that reason I've send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] at October, 14, offering my help second time. And still do not have an answer. So then, I insist on contacting Simon using other ways than [EMAIL PROTECTED] and starting a discussion about approaches for speeding up this porting task. Alexander Churanov ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Boost 1.37 released!
> Hi! > > We're still having Boost 1.34 in the ports tree and missed version 1.35 and > waited so long for a port version 1.36! > Sadly if it (will ever) arrive the ports tree it's not up to date then. So > what's up with this port at all? > > Looking forward to see Boost 1.37 in the ports tree soon. It is not that simple. Roughly 83 ports depend directly or indirectly on boost: $ grep boost-1.34.1 /usr/ports/INDEX-7 | wc -l 83 I'm sure Simon would gladly commit your patch. Emanuel -- ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Boost 1.37 released!
its surprisingly easier to install boost directly from tarball probably he has lost interest or not able to find time, I reminded him to update 1.35 then 1.36, it felt my mails were redirected to /dev/null ;-) On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 3:12 PM, Flex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi! > > We're still having Boost 1.34 in the ports tree and missed version 1.35 and > waited so long for a port version 1.36! > Sadly if it (will ever) arrive the ports tree it's not up to date then. So > what's up with this port at all? > > Looking forward to see Boost 1.37 in the ports tree soon. > > > /Flex > ___ > freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Boost 1.37 released!
On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 16:12:08 +0100 Flex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >We're still having Boost 1.34 in the ports tree and missed version >1.35 and waited so long for a port version 1.36! >Sadly if it (will ever) arrive the ports tree it's not up to date >then. So what's up with this port at all? > >Looking forward to see Boost 1.37 in the ports tree soon. Have you tried contacting the port maintainer regarding this problem? [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Jerry [EMAIL PROTECTED] His mind is like a steel trap: full of mice. Foghorn Leghorn signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Boost 1.37 released!
Hi! We're still having Boost 1.34 in the ports tree and missed version 1.35 and waited so long for a port version 1.36! Sadly if it (will ever) arrive the ports tree it's not up to date then. So what's up with this port at all? Looking forward to see Boost 1.37 in the ports tree soon. /Flex ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
