On 23 April 2015 at 20:58, Klaim - Joël Lamotte wrote:
> I believe that this issue is with Boost not having a way to specify which
> target architecture is the build,
> which prevent any CMake script to be able to identify which build is
> installed.
Joel,
Thanks for confirming what's the issue.
I believe that this issue is with Boost not having a way to specify which
target architecture is the build,
which prevent any CMake script to be able to identify which build is
installed.
Assuming that the build arch is the same than the OS is not useful on
Windows where most applications
still nee
Hi,
Here is the situation outlined:
- project has Boost as optional dependency
- running CMake on Linux 64-bit to build 32-bit binaries
- CXXFLAGS=-m32 is specified
- Boost 64-bit binaries are installed
- Boost 32-bit binaries are *not* installed
Expected result:
- Boost 32 is not found, Boost is
This is not a new issue, as you can see in this thread:
http://www.cmake.org/pipermail/cmake/2010-March/035889.html
Very frustrating. I think in the end I removed the system installation.
May not be an option for everyone.
On 11/16/2011 10:32 AM, Ben Boeckel wrote:
Hi,
Using the 'release' b
Hi,
Using the 'release' branch of CMake, it seems that FindBoost.cmake got
broken such that when BOOST_ROOT is set, the system copy of boost is
still found, effectively ignoring whatever BOOST_ROOT sets. This doesn't
work at all for projects where a newer boost than the system version is
needed.
l.com [mailto:philiplow...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
Philip Lowman
Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 2010 10:15 PM
To: Dixon, Shane
Cc: cmake@cmake.org
Subject: Re: [CMake] FindBoost.cmake trouble with static libs (-gd vs -sgd
issue)
Shane,
Thanks for opening ticket 11204 for this issue. My response is included
Shane,
Thanks for opening ticket 11204 for this issue. My response is included
there.
http://public.kitware.com/Bug/view.php?id=11204
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 4:08 PM, Dixon, Shane wrote:
> I found that when using the FindBoost.cmake and using the
> Boost_USE_STATIC_LIBS option, it wouldn’t find
I found that when using the FindBoost.cmake and using the Boost_USE_STATIC_LIBS
option, it wouldn't find the static libs in my C:\Boost\libs folder. It kept
coming back with files ending in -gd libs instead of -sgd libs even though the
option Boost_USE_STATIC_LIBS was set. I found that it had
Someone has included 1.44 in the latest FindBoost.cmake in git.
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 3:35 PM, Dixon, Shane wrote:
> I was had trouble getting FindBoost.cmake to work correctly and I found
> that there was a variable I had to adjust in the FindBoost.cmake file:
>
>
>
> set(_Boost_KNOWN_VERSIO
I was had trouble getting FindBoost.cmake to work correctly and I found that
there was a variable I had to adjust in the FindBoost.cmake file:
set(_Boost_KNOWN_VERSIONS ${Boost_ADDITIONAL_VERSIONS}
"1.41.0" "1.41" "1.40.0" "1.40" "1.39.0" "1.39" "1.38.0" "1.38" "1.37.0"
"1.37"
"1.36
cmake-boun...@cmake.org] On
Behalf
Of Andreas Pakulat
Sent: 10 January 2010 21:39
To: cmake@cmake.org
Subject: Re: [CMake] FindBoost.cmake to find the boost libraries
On 10.01.10 19:55:44, Chauhan, Vikas wrote:
However, do you know the use of "Boost_FIND_COMPONENTS" com
> -Original Message-
> From: cmake-boun...@cmake.org [mailto:cmake-boun...@cmake.org] On
Behalf
> Of Andreas Pakulat
> Sent: 10 January 2010 21:39
> To: cmake@cmake.org
> Subject: Re: [CMake] FindBoost.cmake to find the boost libraries
>
> On 10.01.10 19:55:
On 10.01.10 19:55:44, Chauhan, Vikas wrote:
> However, do you know the use of "Boost_FIND_COMPONENTS" command. There
> is no documentation for it at present. Is it a deprecated command?
There's no such command, never was. But there seems to be a variable of
that name used inside FindBoost.cmake. I
> -Original Message-
> From: cmake-boun...@cmake.org [mailto:cmake-boun...@cmake.org] On
Behalf
> Of Andreas Pakulat
> Sent: 10 January 2010 17:51
> To: cmake@cmake.org
> Subject: Re: [CMake] FindBoost.cmake to find the boost libraries
>
> On 10.01.10 15:57:
On 10.01.10 15:57:23, Chauhan, Vikas wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I am using the code below in cmakelists.txt to find the boost libraries
> using cmake 2.8.
> After the execution "Boost_LIBRARIES" does not contain anything. Am I
> correct in assuming that this variable must be populated with the list
> o
Hi all,
I am using the code below in cmakelists.txt to find the boost libraries
using cmake 2.8.
After the execution "Boost_LIBRARIES" does not contain anything. Am I
correct in assuming that this variable must be populated with the list
of boost libraries?
Also, I am not sure how do I get the ap
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 11:05 AM, Pau Garcia i Quiles
wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 4:47 PM, James C.
> Sutherland wrote:
> > The new boost libraries (as of version 1.40) will not have all of the
> extra
> > information like compiler info and boost version tagged onto the library
> > name.
> >
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 4:47 PM, James C.
Sutherland wrote:
> The new boost libraries (as of version 1.40) will not have all of the extra
> information like compiler info and boost version tagged onto the library
> name.
>
> Is there going to be a patch released for the FindBoost.cmake to conform t
The new boost libraries (as of version 1.40) will not have all of the
extra information like compiler info and boost version tagged onto the
library name.
Is there going to be a patch released for the FindBoost.cmake to
conform to the new library naming convention?
Will the change be a br
2008/12/12 Philip Lowman :
>>I'm no Kitware employee but so far I think that at least
>>for FindBoost.cmake (or other maintained Find modules)
>>the bugs should be handled directly by its maintainer:
>>http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake:Module_Maintainers
>>
>>May be it's worth asking Andreas if it is
. Original Message ...
On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 09:03:48 +0100 "Eric NOULARD"
wrote:
>Le Fri, 12 Dec 2008 01:50:29 -0500,
>"Philip Lowman" a écrit :
>
>> >>
>> >> There's an open bug to fix this here:
>> > http://public.kitware.com/Bug/view.php?id=8173
>> >
>> > But no reaction so far...
>>
Le Fri, 12 Dec 2008 11:01:55 +0100,
Andreas Pakulat a écrit :
> >
> > I'm no Kitware employee but so far I think that at least
> > for FindBoost.cmake (or other maintained Find modules)
> > the bugs should be handled directly by its maintainer:
> > http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake:Module_Maintain
On 12.12.08 09:03:48, Eric NOULARD wrote:
> Le Fri, 12 Dec 2008 01:50:29 -0500,
> "Philip Lowman" a écrit :
>
> > >>
> > >> There's an open bug to fix this here:
> > > http://public.kitware.com/Bug/view.php?id=8173
> > >
> > > But no reaction so far...
> >
> >
> > Obviously many bugs in the tr
Le Fri, 12 Dec 2008 01:50:29 -0500,
"Philip Lowman" a écrit :
> >>
> >> There's an open bug to fix this here:
> > http://public.kitware.com/Bug/view.php?id=8173
> >
> > But no reaction so far...
>
>
> Obviously many bugs in the tracker aren't getting dealt with (don't
> know why). Perhaps Kit
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 12:33 AM, Christian Ehrlicher
wrote:
> Patrick Spendrin schrieb:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> as I am just working with some boost headers that do reside in a different
>> include directory, I would like to ask to apply the appended patch.
>> It will not only find versions where heade
Patrick Spendrin schrieb:
Hello,
as I am just working with some boost headers that do reside in a
different include directory, I would like to ask to apply the appended
patch.
It will not only find versions where headers are in
prefix/include/boost/boost_1_34 (which is currently the default f
Hello,
as I am just working with some boost headers that do reside in a
different include directory, I would like to ask to apply the appended
patch.
It will not only find versions where headers are in
prefix/include/boost/boost_1_34 (which is currently the default for
windows) but also prefi
On 11.12.08 13:42:38, Mike Jackson wrote:
>
>
> Andreas Pakulat wrote:
>> On 11.12.08 11:38:38, Mike Jackson wrote:
>>> Up a bit further I see the culprit:
>>>
>>> IF ( WIN32 AND Boost_USE_STATIC_LIBS )
>>> SET (Boost_LIB_PREFIX "lib")
>>> ENDIF ( WIN32 AND Boost_USE_STATIC_LIBS )
>>>
>>> S
Andreas Pakulat wrote:
On 11.12.08 11:38:38, Mike Jackson wrote:
Up a bit further I see the culprit:
IF ( WIN32 AND Boost_USE_STATIC_LIBS )
SET (Boost_LIB_PREFIX "lib")
ENDIF ( WIN32 AND Boost_USE_STATIC_LIBS )
So I guess I need some logic in my own cmake files that says if Boost
w
On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 7:12 PM, Andreas Pakulat wrote:
> On 11.12.08 11:38:38, Mike Jackson wrote:
>> Up a bit further I see the culprit:
>>
>> IF ( WIN32 AND Boost_USE_STATIC_LIBS )
>> SET (Boost_LIB_PREFIX "lib")
>> ENDIF ( WIN32 AND Boost_USE_STATIC_LIBS )
>>
>> So I guess I need some
On 11.12.08 11:38:38, Mike Jackson wrote:
> Up a bit further I see the culprit:
>
> IF ( WIN32 AND Boost_USE_STATIC_LIBS )
> SET (Boost_LIB_PREFIX "lib")
> ENDIF ( WIN32 AND Boost_USE_STATIC_LIBS )
>
> So I guess I need some logic in my own cmake files that says if Boost
> was NOT found,
Up a bit further I see the culprit:
IF ( WIN32 AND Boost_USE_STATIC_LIBS )
SET (Boost_LIB_PREFIX "lib")
ENDIF ( WIN32 AND Boost_USE_STATIC_LIBS )
So I guess I need some logic in my own cmake files that says if Boost
was NOT found, set Boost_USE_STATIC_LIBS to TRUE and try again, only if
System: WinXP/ VS 2008 Express / CMake 2.6.2 / Boost 1.36.0 from BoostPro
Not sure what the intended behavior is here BUT I have ONLY installed
static libraries on WinXP for Boost. When I run CMake using the
following to find boost:
SET (Boost_FIND_REQUIRED TRUE)
SET (Boost_FIND_QUIETLY FALSE
Doug Gregor wrote:
On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 6:33 PM, Fernando Cacciola
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
OK, I found the problem today.
The version is parsed (from version.hpp) into a variable named
Booist_MAJOR_VERSION (et al)
But the comparison code incorrectly uses Boost_VERSION_MAJOR.
(Haven't tryed
Andreas Pakulat wrote:
On 03.07.08 19:40:29, Fernando Cacciola wrote:
On 03.07.08 12:23:11, Doug Gregor wrote:
On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 1:24 PM, Fernando Cacciola
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
(7)
I couldn't understand the dicotomy between the cached and non-cached
versions of the include dirs:
B
On 03.07.08 19:40:29, Fernando Cacciola wrote:
>> On 03.07.08 12:23:11, Doug Gregor wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 1:24 PM, Fernando Cacciola
>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
(7)
I couldn't understand the dicotomy between the cached and non-cached
versions of the include dirs:
On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 6:33 PM, Fernando Cacciola
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> OK, I found the problem today.
> The version is parsed (from version.hpp) into a variable named
> Booist_MAJOR_VERSION (et al)
> But the comparison code incorrectly uses Boost_VERSION_MAJOR.
> (Haven't tryed the latest p
Doug Gregor wrote:
On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 12:23 PM, Doug Gregor
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Anyway, I'm working on a bunch of issues with FindBoost, and will ping
the list when I think I have it right.
There's a much-improved FindBoost module now in CMake CVS. Hopefully
it will get merge in to
Hi Andreas,
On 03.07.08 12:23:11, Doug Gregor wrote:
On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 1:24 PM, Fernando Cacciola
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
(7)
I couldn't understand the dicotomy between the cached and non-cached
versions of the include dirs:
Boost_INCLUDE_DIRS vs Boost_INCLUDE_DIR
What's the choice
Hi Doug,
Hi Fernando,
[snip]
(4)
The two loops over _boost_TEST_VERSIONS are nearly indentical, and it's a
bit complicated, so I would put that in a macro to make it more readable,
discriminating the search path just around the call to find_path (where
it
matters)
With CMake 2.6.1, the
On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 12:23 PM, Doug Gregor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Anyway, I'm working on a bunch of issues with FindBoost, and will ping
> the list when I think I have it right.
There's a much-improved FindBoost module now in CMake CVS. Hopefully
it will get merge in to the next RC for 2.6
On 03.07.08 12:23:11, Doug Gregor wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 1:24 PM, Fernando Cacciola
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > (7)
> >
> > I couldn't understand the dicotomy between the cached and non-cached
> > versions of the include dirs:
> >
> > Boost_INCLUDE_DIRS vs Boost_INCLUDE_DIR
> >
> > Wh
Hi Fernando,
On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 1:24 PM, Fernando Cacciola
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm in charge of the CMake build installation for CGAL (www.cgal.org) and I
> so far had been using my own FindBoost module hoping to get rid of it as
> soon as the official module got improved.
>
> While t
Hi Andreas Pakulat,
I'm in charge of the CMake build installation for CGAL (www.cgal.org) and I
so far had been using my own FindBoost module hoping to get rid of it as
soon as the official module got improved.
While the latest FindBoost is a significant improvement over the previous
version
On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 11:18 AM, Mike Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ok. I downloaded the latest CMake nightly (2.7-20080412) and gave this
> FindBoost a shot with a MinGW current Stable release, which is I think
> 3.14, at least according to the _mingw.h file.
>
> It didn't work. Here ar
On 13.04.08 09:08:08, Alan W. Irwin wrote:
> On 2008-04-13 11:04+0200 Andreas Pakulat wrote:
>
>> [...]I'll be the first one to try out MinGW which comes with gcc 4.x [...]
>
> The MinGW team officially releases their packages at SourceForge. From
> http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?gro
On 2008-04-13 11:04+0200 Andreas Pakulat wrote:
[...]I'll be the first one to try out MinGW which comes with gcc 4.x [...]
The MinGW team officially releases their packages at SourceForge. From
http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=2435&package_id=241304
there is a gcc 4.3.0 r
EMAIL PROTECTED] Im Auftrag von
Stephan Tolksdorf
Gesendet: Sonntag, 13. April 2008 12:34
An: CMake ML
Betreff: Re: [CMake] FindBoost.cmake updated on the bugtracker
Andreas Pakulat wrote:
> On 12.04.08 08:52:38, Alan W. Irwin wrote:
>> On 2008-04-12 10:07+0200 Andreas Pakulat wrote:
>&
Andreas Pakulat wrote:
On 12.04.08 08:52:38, Alan W. Irwin wrote:
On 2008-04-12 10:07+0200 Andreas Pakulat wrote:
That's fine, but then somebody else with access to windows should
volunteer to do that testing since MinGW is an extremely important platform.
Finally, from our PLplot experience, M
On 12.04.08 11:18:31, Mike Jackson wrote:
> Ok. I downloaded the latest CMake nightly (2.7-20080412) and gave this
> FindBoost a shot with a MinGW current Stable release, which is I think
> 3.14, at least according to the _mingw.h file.
>
> It didn't work. Here are the changes. Sorry, but I don't
On 12.04.08 08:52:38, Alan W. Irwin wrote:
> On 2008-04-12 10:07+0200 Andreas Pakulat wrote:
>>
>> My experience with MinGW so far is that its simply not ready yet for
>> projects such as boost or KDE, they still need some time. Thats why
>> I won't do work on getting KDevelop4 working on MinGW -
On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 3:52 PM, Mike Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And just to add some more info about boost:
>
>
> http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_35_0/more/getting_started/windows.html#identify-your-toolset
>
> Under the "Toolset" column is "gcc" with the following description:
> gcc
--
Mike Jackson Senior Research Engineer
Innovative Management & Technology Services
On Apr 12, 2008, at 11:52 AM, Alan W. Irwin wrote:
On 2008-04-12 10:07+0200 Andreas Pakulat wrote:
My experience with MinGW so far is that its simply not ready yet for
projects such as boost or KDE, th
On 2008-04-12 10:07+0200 Andreas Pakulat wrote:
My experience with MinGW so far is that its simply not ready yet for
projects such as boost or KDE, they still need some time. Thats why
I won't do work on getting KDevelop4 working on MinGW - at least not
without someone paying for it.
That's
Ok. I downloaded the latest CMake nightly (2.7-20080412) and gave this
FindBoost a shot with a MinGW current Stable release, which is I think
3.14, at least according to the _mingw.h file.
It didn't work. Here are the changes. Sorry, but I don't have a decent
diff generator on this windows box so
On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 4:07 AM, Andreas Pakulat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 11.04.08 11:24:11, Doug Gregor wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 5:51 AM, Andreas Pakulat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Did so and of course a few small changes where needed :) I'll attach a
> > > diff of those ne
On 11.04.08 11:24:11, Doug Gregor wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 5:51 AM, Andreas Pakulat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Did so and of course a few small changes where needed :) I'll attach a
> > diff of those needed changes. With those changes cmake properly finds
> > the static libs if I prov
On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 5:51 AM, Andreas Pakulat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Did so and of course a few small changes where needed :) I'll attach a
> diff of those needed changes. With those changes cmake properly finds
> the static libs if I provide the Boost_USE_STATIC_LIBS and it finds the
>
On 08.04.08 16:43:30, Doug Gregor wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 5:54 AM, Andreas Pakulat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > New version uploaded.
>
> I've looked through this module a bit, and it looks like it's in great
> shape. I have a few suggestions, implemented in the attached
> FindBoost.cma
On 08.04.08 16:43:30, Doug Gregor wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 5:54 AM, Andreas Pakulat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > New version uploaded.
>
> I've looked through this module a bit, and it looks like it's in great
> shape. I have a few suggestions, implemented in the attached
> FindBoost.cma
On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 5:54 AM, Andreas Pakulat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> New version uploaded.
I've looked through this module a bit, and it looks like it's in great
shape. I have a few suggestions, implemented in the attached
FindBoost.cmake; the diff against "v9" from the bug tracker follow
On 08.04.08 09:04:52, Sören Freudiger wrote:
> Hi out there
> The new macro is pretty nice.
> But one section is still missing:
>
> IF (MSVC90)
> SET (_boost_COMPILER "-vc90")
> ENDIF(MSVC90)
Aah, right. thx. Totally forgot that one's got released already :)
> And the option for the new
lto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Im Auftrag von
Andreas Pakulat
Gesendet: Dienstag, 8. April 2008 01:23
An: cmake@cmake.org
Betreff: Re: [CMake] FindBoost.cmake updated on the bugtracker
On 07.04.08 19:47:03, Timenkov Yuri wrote:
> On Monday 07 April 2008 19:37:26 Mathias Dalheimer wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
Andreas Pakulat wrote:
On 07.04.08 19:47:03, Timenkov Yuri wrote:
On Monday 07 April 2008 19:37:26 Mathias Dalheimer wrote:
Hi,
as a new cmake user I am pretty impressed how painless software builds
can be - so first of all, thanks for releasing this software.
I came to different solution. I
On 07.04.08 19:47:03, Timenkov Yuri wrote:
> On Monday 07 April 2008 19:37:26 Mathias Dalheimer wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > as a new cmake user I am pretty impressed how painless software builds
> > can be - so first of all, thanks for releasing this software.
> I came to different solution. I have to b
On 07.04.08 19:47:03, Timenkov Yuri wrote:
> On Monday 07 April 2008 19:37:26 Mathias Dalheimer wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > as a new cmake user I am pretty impressed how painless software builds
> > can be - so first of all, thanks for releasing this software.
> I came to different solution. I have to b
On Monday 07 April 2008 19:37:26 Mathias Dalheimer wrote:
> Hi,
>
> as a new cmake user I am pretty impressed how painless software builds
> can be - so first of all, thanks for releasing this software.
I came to different solution. I have to build statically with some libraries
(including boost),
Hi,
as a new cmake user I am pretty impressed how painless software builds
can be - so first of all, thanks for releasing this software.
Andreas Pakulat wrote:
> See FindBoost_v7.cmake on
> http://public.kitware.com/Bug/view.php?id=6257 for the latest
> version, which should be completely compat
On 05.04.08 21:37:43, Andreas Pakulat wrote:
> On 05.04.08 14:13:14, Bill Hoffman wrote:
> > Andreas Pakulat wrote:
> >> On 28.03.08 10:58:39, Bill Hoffman wrote:
> >>> David Thulson wrote:
> It would be nice if this could get into 2.6.0. Boost 1.35 is about to
> be released:
>
> >>
On 05.04.08 14:13:14, Bill Hoffman wrote:
> Andreas Pakulat wrote:
>> On 28.03.08 10:58:39, Bill Hoffman wrote:
>>> David Thulson wrote:
It would be nice if this could get into 2.6.0. Boost 1.35 is about to
be released:
http://lists.boost.org/boost-users/2008/03/34896.php
Andreas Pakulat wrote:
On 28.03.08 10:58:39, Bill Hoffman wrote:
David Thulson wrote:
It would be nice if this could get into 2.6.0. Boost 1.35 is about to
be released:
http://lists.boost.org/boost-users/2008/03/34896.php
And it at least appears that the latest version in the bug tracker
wil
On 28.03.08 10:58:39, Bill Hoffman wrote:
> David Thulson wrote:
>> It would be nice if this could get into 2.6.0. Boost 1.35 is about to
>> be released:
>>
>> http://lists.boost.org/boost-users/2008/03/34896.php
>>
>> And it at least appears that the latest version in the bug tracker
>> will look
On 02.04.08 19:30:21, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> Andreas Pakulat wrote:
>> Ok, I give in. Do you mind separating the loop into two so its easier to
>> see whats going on and we don't have two use-less cache variables? Then
>> I'll apply what you send to kdevplatform and add a new version to the
>> c
Andreas Pakulat wrote:
Ok, I give in. Do you mind separating the loop into two so its easier to
see whats going on and we don't have two use-less cache variables? Then
I'll apply what you send to kdevplatform and add a new version to the
cmake bugreport.
Done. I was resisting that because... w
On 02.04.08 16:47:34, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> Andreas Pakulat wrote:
>> On 01.04.08 21:53:59, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
>>> Andreas Pakulat wrote:
On 01.04.08 16:37:42, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> Andreas Pakulat wrote:
>> On 31.03.08 20:14:00, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
>> Also note that t
Andreas Pakulat wrote:
On 01.04.08 21:53:59, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
Andreas Pakulat wrote:
On 01.04.08 16:37:42, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
Andreas Pakulat wrote:
On 31.03.08 20:14:00, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
Also note that those variables you use in
find_path are automatically cached and I don't
On 01.04.08 21:53:59, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> Andreas Pakulat wrote:
>> On 01.04.08 16:37:42, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
>>> Andreas Pakulat wrote:
On 31.03.08 20:14:00, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
Also note that those variables you use in
find_path are automatically cached and I don't think
Andreas Pakulat wrote:
On 01.04.08 16:37:42, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
Andreas Pakulat wrote:
On 31.03.08 20:14:00, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
Also note that those variables you use in
find_path are automatically cached and I don't think they should appear
in it.
Apart from that, you're iterating ove
On 01.04.08 16:37:42, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> Andreas Pakulat wrote:
>> On 31.03.08 20:14:00, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
>> Also note that those variables you use in
>> find_path are automatically cached and I don't think they should appear
>> in it.
>>
>> Apart from that, you're iterating over all te
Andreas Pakulat wrote:
On 31.03.08 20:14:00, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
Andreas Pakulat wrote:
Hi,
just wanted to let interested parties know that I've added a new version
of FindBoost.cmake to bug #6257. It fixes a few bugs I still had in
v2.
I'd delete the existing versions, but unfortunately C
On 31.03.08 20:14:00, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> Andreas Pakulat wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> just wanted to let interested parties know that I've added a new version
>> of FindBoost.cmake to bug #6257. It fixes a few bugs I still had in
>> v2.
>>
>> I'd delete the existing versions, but unfortunately CMake's
Andreas Pakulat wrote:
Hi,
just wanted to let interested parties know that I've added a new version
of FindBoost.cmake to bug #6257. It fixes a few bugs I still had in
v2.
I'd delete the existing versions, but unfortunately CMake's bugtracker
doesn't allow to do that.
Last but not least: Is th
On 28.03.08 18:16:50, Timenkov Yuri wrote:
> On Friday 28 March 2008 18:05:40 Andreas Pakulat wrote:
> > On 28.03.08 09:36:06, David Thulson wrote:
> > > It would be nice if this could get into 2.6.0. Boost 1.35 is about to
> > > be released:
> > >
> > > http://lists.boost.org/boost-users/2008/03/
On 28.03.08 10:58:39, Bill Hoffman wrote:
> David Thulson wrote:
>> It would be nice if this could get into 2.6.0. Boost 1.35 is about to
>> be released:
>>
>> http://lists.boost.org/boost-users/2008/03/34896.php
>>
>> And it at least appears that the latest version in the bug tracker
>> will look
On Friday 28 March 2008 18:05:40 Andreas Pakulat wrote:
> On 28.03.08 09:36:06, David Thulson wrote:
> > It would be nice if this could get into 2.6.0. Boost 1.35 is about to
> > be released:
> >
> > http://lists.boost.org/boost-users/2008/03/34896.php
> >
> > And it at least appears that the late
On 28.03.08 09:36:06, David Thulson wrote:
> It would be nice if this could get into 2.6.0. Boost 1.35 is about to
> be released:
>
> http://lists.boost.org/boost-users/2008/03/34896.php
>
> And it at least appears that the latest version in the bug tracker
> will look for 1.35. Is that right?
David Thulson wrote:
It would be nice if this could get into 2.6.0. Boost 1.35 is about to
be released:
http://lists.boost.org/boost-users/2008/03/34896.php
And it at least appears that the latest version in the bug tracker
will look for 1.35. Is that right? The version included in the CMake
It would be nice if this could get into 2.6.0. Boost 1.35 is about to
be released:
http://lists.boost.org/boost-users/2008/03/34896.php
And it at least appears that the latest version in the bug tracker
will look for 1.35. Is that right? The version included in the CMake
2.6.0 Beta does not re
Hi,
just wanted to let interested parties know that I've added a new version
of FindBoost.cmake to bug #6257. It fixes a few bugs I still had in
v2.
I'd delete the existing versions, but unfortunately CMake's bugtracker
doesn't allow to do that.
Last but not least: Is there any chance of getting
Am Freitag 25 Januar 2008 schrieb Andreas Pakulat:
> On 20.01.08 00:09:40, Andreas Pakulat wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > apparently the FindBoost.cmake I attached to
> > http://www.cmake.org/Bug/view.php?id=6257
> >
> > isn't quite perfect - actually not even close. The last few days I've
> > worked with
On 20.01.08 00:09:40, Andreas Pakulat wrote:
> Hi,
>
> apparently the FindBoost.cmake I attached to
> http://www.cmake.org/Bug/view.php?id=6257
>
> isn't quite perfect - actually not even close. The last few days I've
> worked with Andreas Schneider to make it work on his and my own system.
Here
On Sunday 20 January 2008, Andreas Pakulat wrote:
...
> I have no idea how cmake's various GUI's work, but if they don't provide
> a way to set CMake variables before runnint cmake, thats a bug/missing
> feature in the GUI.
The new Qt based GUI has this feature.
Alex
On 20.01.08 16:05:02, Miguel A. Figueroa-Villanueva wrote:
> On Jan 20, 2008 2:17 PM, Andreas Pakulat wrote:
> > On 20.01.08 14:02:32, Miguel A. Figueroa-Villanueva wrote:
> > The real problem is actually building up the "right" library names and
> > allowing the user to choose between
> > static/s
On Jan 20, 2008 2:17 PM, Andreas Pakulat wrote:
> On 20.01.08 14:02:32, Miguel A. Figueroa-Villanueva wrote:
> > I guess there has been some difficulties with the boost version
> > number. My suggestion would be to use a directory that includes the
> > version number and extract it from there (e.g.
Miguel A. Figueroa-Villanueva wrote:
> I guess there has been some difficulties with the boost version
> number. My suggestion would be to use a directory that includes the
> version number and extract it from there (e.g., boost_include_dir -
> .../include/boost-X.YY). Then you could just have a fi
On 20.01.08 14:02:32, Miguel A. Figueroa-Villanueva wrote:
> I guess there has been some difficulties with the boost version
> number. My suggestion would be to use a directory that includes the
> version number and extract it from there (e.g., boost_include_dir -
> .../include/boost-X.YY). Then yo
On Jan 19, 2008 7:14 PM, Andreas Schneider wrote:
> Andreas Pakulat wrote:
> > apparently the FindBoost.cmake I attached to
> > http://www.cmake.org/Bug/view.php?id=6257
> >
> > isn't quite perfect - actually not even close. The last few days I've
> > worked with Andreas Schneider to make it work o
On 20.01.08 10:51:15, Mike Jackson wrote:
>
> On Jan 20, 2008, at 7:15 AM, Hendrik Sattler wrote:
>
>> -s simply means static according to the above pages. Is static linking to
>> boost not supported by the module?
>
> Everyone should review the following page:
>
> http://www.boost.org/more/getting
On Jan 20, 2008, at 9:51 AM, Andreas Pakulat wrote:
On 20.01.08 13:15:47, Hendrik Sattler wrote:
Am Sonntag 20 Januar 2008 schrieb Andreas Pakulat:
On 20.01.08 11:15:33, Hendrik Sattler wrote:
http://www.boost.org/more/getting_started/windows.html#get-boost
(slightly wrong link in there) ->
On Jan 20, 2008, at 7:15 AM, Hendrik Sattler wrote:
-s simply means static according to the above pages. Is static
linking to
boost not supported by the module?
Everyone should review the following page:
http://www.boost.org/more/getting_started/windows.html#library-naming
-s means you ar
1 - 100 of 113 matches
Mail list logo
