From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Feb 20 18:47:56 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C08F10656C7; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 18:47:56 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from makc@freebsd.org) Received: from mail.issp.ac.ru (mail.issp.ac.ru [77.236.34.3]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 661F18FC08; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 18:47:54 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from makc@freebsd.org) Received: from [62.63.90.123] [62.63.90.123:44498] (HELO/EHLO luna.dio.ru, authenticated with PLAIN) by mail.issp.ac.ru with ESMTP/inet id n1KIV2vr070682 (using TLSv1/SSLv3, with cipher DHE-DSS-AES256-SHA (256 bits), verified NO) Fri, 20 Feb 2009 21:31:02 +0300 (MSK) From: Max Brazhnikov To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 21:30:08 +0300 User-Agent: KMail/1.11.0 (FreeBSD/7.1-STABLE; KDE/4.2.0; i386; ; ) References: <3cb459ed0902191459le2b20d5s14b13a032714802b@mail.gmail.com> <1e39c0a90902191949h63543bd9w8ce8c4c0eaa5f7b8@mail.gmail.com> <3cb459ed0902200615r5abbedb1ncaedb4135bf1fed7@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <3cb459ed0902200615r5abbedb1ncaedb4135bf1fed7@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200902202130.08599.makc@freebsd.org> X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH authentication, not delayed by milter-greylist-3.0 (mail.issp.ac.ru [77.236.34.3]); Fri, 20 Feb 2009 21:31:03 +0300 (MSK) X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.94.1/9016/Fri Feb 20 07:03:22 2009 on mail.issp.ac.ru X-Virus-Status: Clean Cc: Alexander Churanov , Li-Wen Hsu Subject: Re: Status of devel/boost X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 18:47:57 -0000 On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 17:15:53 +0300, Alexander Churanov wrote: > 2009/2/20 Li-Wen Hsu > > > That is great and I made another patch based on your own, which fixed > > some minor problems > > (includes building on amd64): > > > > http://people.freebsd.org/~lwhsu/boost-1.37.diff > > I've examined your patch. It really adds useful things besides indentation > > :-) . I've also noted that my proposed patch is incomplete. Actually I've > > fixed Math and Test libraries, but since 'diff' was used to compare > directories, new files were not included into the patch. > > > Pav had an exp-run and here is the list of the ports which failed: > > > > > > http://people.freebsd.org/~lwhsu/boost-1.37.txt > > This also useful. How much time is takes for you, guys, to rebuild all > ports that depend on boost? I've set up dedicated i386 and amd64 build > boxes, but it still takes more than a day (don't know actual time for now) > to rebuild all depending ports. > I'm pretty happy with my current setup, however if somebody with faster > hardware would take job of rebuilding all depending ports and telling me > which failed - then that would make the process much faster. Since I would > only work on fixing failed ports and ensuring they build successfully. > > > All OpenOffice.org ports are failed, openoffice.org-2.4.2_1.log is > > just one of them. > > Bad news. OpenOffice is huge. However, I think it's possible to examine and > fix this. > > > So are you working on a new patch currently? Maybe you can based on > > my 1.37 patch (appply that first then update it to 1.38), this may help > > thing goes > > more smoothly. > > Yes, sure. I've missed a flaw fixed by you in python/detail/config.hpp > > > That's really a lot of work, maybe we also need to notify maintainers > > and see if upstream has newer version which supports newer version boost. > > For the currently > > status, if we want have 1.37 in the tree, the fastest way is repocopy > > devel/boost to devel/boost134 > > and changes all the LIB_DEPENDS of the ports which needs 1.34 to build. > > Maybe we just set > > a time to make this happen? > > You are reading my thoughts. However, this would present a choice: either > you have recent boost or you have applications that depend on 1.34 and > boost-1.34, since they are unlikely to coexist. Having multiple versions of > the same port installed on the system at the same time is ideal, but I do > not beleive it's possible at present. Multiple version of boost can coexist. But boost port should be fixed at first to install versioned includes/libs (which is supported by boost afaik) and this has to be done if multiple boost ports will be included to the portstree. btw, it would be nice also to resolve conflict between boost and boost-python ports. Is there reason to have default boost without python support? > My plan is to examine how much work is necessary to fix all ports, this > looks like a better way for now. Fixing ports to build vs versioned but supported boost is less hassled, that patching them to build vs latest boost. > Alexander Churanov Max