From owner-freebsd-ports-bugs@freebsd.org Wed Apr 18 10:10:50 2018 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports-bugs@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1019AFA57C3 for ; Wed, 18 Apr 2018 10:10:50 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (mailman.ysv.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::50:5]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E58182E05 for ; Wed, 18 Apr 2018 10:10:49 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) id 3FAFBFA57C1; Wed, 18 Apr 2018 10:10:49 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: ports-bugs@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DA9FFA57C0 for ; Wed, 18 Apr 2018 10:10:49 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from mxrelay.ysv.freebsd.org (mxrelay.ysv.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "mxrelay.ysv.freebsd.org", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BAB3E82DE9 for ; Wed, 18 Apr 2018 10:10:48 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::16:76]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mxrelay.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 106DA5E2E for ; Wed, 18 Apr 2018 10:10:48 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.118]) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id w3IAAlRk028660 for ; Wed, 18 Apr 2018 10:10:47 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: (from www@localhost) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id w3IAAlOh028658 for ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org; Wed, 18 Apr 2018 10:10:47 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) X-Authentication-Warning: kenobi.freebsd.org: www set sender to bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org using -f From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 227428] devel/cmake: fails to find suffixed libboost_python Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2018 10:10:47 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: AssignedTo X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: Ports & Packages X-Bugzilla-Component: Individual Port(s) X-Bugzilla-Version: Latest X-Bugzilla-Keywords: patch X-Bugzilla-Severity: Affects Only Me X-Bugzilla-Who: wjw@digiware.nl X-Bugzilla-Status: New X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: --- X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Flags: maintainer-feedback? maintainer-feedback? X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports-bugs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.25 Precedence: list List-Id: Ports bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2018 10:10:50 -0000 https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D227428 --- Comment #12 from Willem Jan Withagen --- (In reply to Adriaan de Groot from comment #11) If the fix in the Cmake stuff (either FreeBSD specific or not) allows for this call find_package(Boost 1.66 COMPONENTS ${BOOST_COMPONENTS} REQUIRED) to do "the right thing" (tm), then No changes to the ceph-source are needed. As things go now I'll have to add a selector on FreeBSD to append the python-version. No biggie, but again specific code for a specific problem. That said, to has started with a discussion on ceph-dev to determine what t= o do with 2.7 and how fast to fase it out, and make all 3.x code.=20 That could/would leave FreeBSD users that are mainly on 2.7 in the cold. Which should not be a major problem from opperational point, since you do n= ot want to do much other on the ceph storage nodes. It could however conflict = on compute nodes where scripting depends on 2.7 and 2.7 compatible classes. So I'm driven here by what Ceph does in the code, and by FreeBSD packages in what is possible and desirable. And that in the negative time I have availa= ble ATM. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=