Hi, On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 08:55:15AM -0400, Beman Dawes wrote:
1.37.0 beta 1 is available on SourceForge. See http://tinyurl.com/674rcl
So you started announcing beta versions? Great, I really like this considering the errors which bothered me in the past in released versions.
The beta period will be approximately ten days. Please post bug reports to either the boost developer or user lists, but also let us hear about success stories too!
I wonder why the same problems as in previous releases occur again: Many files in the tarball have wrong permission, e.g. libs/test/doc/html/execution-monitor/compilation.html: -rwxr-xr-x Why is an HTML file marked executable? Please check either the output of "find -type f -perm +111" or the svn:executable property in the repository. ############################################################### configure cannot be called from a separate build directory: boost_1_37_0_beta1/build$ ../configure --prefix=/home/jens/local ../configure: 210: ./tools/jam/src/build.sh: not found Building Boost.Jam with toolset ... cd: 223: can't cd to ./tools/jam/src ############################################################### There are again a lot of warnings (gcc-4.3.2) which can easily be avoided. The first one: libs/program_options/src/options_description.cpp|74| warning: suggest explicit braces to avoid ambiguous ‘else’ Since I learned in the past that such patches are often ignored I do not send a patch. It's also trivially reproducable for everyone (as gcc is free). ############################################################## A minor cosmetic issue: ./configure --show-libraries shows: The following libraries require building: - date_time - filesystem - function_types [snipped] Are the dashs useful? I would prefer a more compact output. ############################################################## All my internal test cases work well with this version of Boost. But one has of course to ignore warnings in Boost's code using -isystem <path_to_boost_headers>, at least for gcc. Jens