[1.49.0] Release candidates available
Release candidate files for 1.49.0 are available at http://boost.cowic.de/rc/ As always, the release managers would appreciate it if you download the candidate of your choice and give building it a try. Please report both success and failure, and anything else that is noteworthy. This helps ensure the candidates build OK before we push them out to SourceForge. Thanks, --Beman --PS: I tested the 7z version, and it built without errors on Win7/VC++ Express 2010 sp1
Hi Beman, On 20-2-2012 19:05, Beman Dawes wrote:
Release candidate files for 1.49.0 are available at http://boost.cowic.de/rc/
As always, the release managers would appreciate it if you download the candidate of your choice and give building it a try. Please report both success and failure, and anything else that is noteworthy.
This helps ensure the candidates build OK before we push them out to SourceForge.
The Boost.Geometry doc's are from 1.48. At least, I downloaded the build-release-docs.7z from the site you pointed at and they are dated 2011/10/09, and their contents is indeed old, w.r.t. Boost.Geometry For 1.49 we did a substantial update in documentation so I hope it will be included. All the qbk files are in the Release branch. The other files (as far as I can see) do not contain Boost.Geometry doc (neither boost-release-docs.7z does) The folder libs does not contain generated documentation so it is neither there. If I can be of help, please notice me. Regards, Barend
On 20 February 2012 18:39, Barend Gehrels <barend@xs4all.nl> wrote:
Hi Beman,
On 20-2-2012 19:05, Beman Dawes wrote:
Release candidate files for 1.49.0 are available at http://boost.cowic.de/rc/
As always, the release managers would appreciate it if you download the candidate of your choice and give building it a try. Please report both success and failure, and anything else that is noteworthy.
This helps ensure the candidates build OK before we push them out to SourceForge.
The Boost.Geometry doc's are from 1.48.
At least, I downloaded the build-release-docs.7z from the site you pointed at and they are dated 2011/10/09, and their contents is indeed old, w.r.t. Boost.Geometry
For 1.49 we did a substantial update in documentation so I hope it will be included. All the qbk files are in the Release branch.
The other files (as far as I can see) do not contain Boost.Geometry doc (neither boost-release-docs.7z does)
The folder libs does not contain generated documentation so it is neither there.
If I can be of help, please notice me.
It stopped working after changeset 76991, which changed the geometry script to use a relative path to the b2 executable at the root of boost, but it isn't there in my setup. I guess this was done to avoid using trunk b2 with the release branch. The easiest thing to do would be to change the script to copy b2 into the expected location and run another documentation build. I'll do that now.
Hi Daniel, On 20-2-2012 21:03, Daniel James wrote:
Hi Beman,
On 20-2-2012 19:05, Beman Dawes wrote:
Release candidate files for 1.49.0 are available at http://boost.cowic.de/rc/
As always, the release managers would appreciate it if you download the candidate of your choice and give building it a try. Please report both success and failure, and anything else that is noteworthy.
This helps ensure the candidates build OK before we push them out to SourceForge.
The Boost.Geometry doc's are from 1.48.
At least, I downloaded the build-release-docs.7z from the site you pointed at and they are dated 2011/10/09, and their contents is indeed old, w.r.t. Boost.Geometry
For 1.49 we did a substantial update in documentation so I hope it will be included. All the qbk files are in the Release branch.
The other files (as far as I can see) do not contain Boost.Geometry doc (neither boost-release-docs.7z does)
The folder libs does not contain generated documentation so it is neither there.
If I can be of help, please notice me. It stopped working after changeset 76991, which changed the geometry
On 20 February 2012 18:39, Barend Gehrels<barend@xs4all.nl> wrote: script to use a relative path to the b2 executable at the root of boost, but it isn't there in my setup. I guess this was done to avoid using trunk b2 with the release branch. The easiest thing to do would be to change the script to copy b2 into the expected location and run another documentation build. I'll do that now.
Thanks for your answer and for your action. I'm very sorry about that - indeed bjam causes big problems at my system on the release branch - it does not work anymore (because of project.jam). I've complained about that on this list but it seems I'm the only one, which I cannot imagine. Running b2 from release branch is fine - which is the cause of the change. Anyway - sorry about breaking it that way, I should have been more careful. Thanks for taking action. What's the best next step? Can it stay like it is or should I revert it? Regards, Barend
On 20 February 2012 21:11, Barend Gehrels <barend@xs4all.nl> wrote:
On 20-2-2012 21:03, Daniel James wrote:
On 20 February 2012 18:39, Barend Gehrels<barend@xs4all.nl> wrote:
It stopped working after changeset 76991, which changed the geometry script to use a relative path to the b2 executable at the root of boost, but it isn't there in my setup. I guess this was done to avoid using trunk b2 with the release branch. The easiest thing to do would be to change the script to copy b2 into the expected location and run another documentation build. I'll do that now.
Thanks for your answer and for your action.
I've run the build again, can you check it? (boost-release-docs.7z).
I'm very sorry about that - indeed bjam causes big problems at my system on the release branch - it does not work anymore (because of project.jam). I've complained about that on this list but it seems I'm the only one, which I cannot imagine. Running b2 from release branch is fine - which is the cause of the change.
I've had the same problem. http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.build/24525/ I think Steven's solution would work, but no one has implemented it. I should probably create a ticket.
Anyway - sorry about breaking it that way, I should have been more careful. Thanks for taking action.
What's the best next step? Can it stay like it is or should I revert it?
If the updated build script worked fine then leave it. It might be useful to check the return value from the call and exit with an error status if appropriate, that will hopefully cause the build script to fail so that we'd catch this kind of thing earlier. I might also add a check that certain files have been created.
Hi Daniel, On 20-2-2012 22:55, Daniel James wrote:
On 20 February 2012 21:11, Barend Gehrels<barend@xs4all.nl> wrote:
On 20-2-2012 21:03, Daniel James wrote:
On 20 February 2012 18:39, Barend Gehrels<barend@xs4all.nl> wrote:
It stopped working after changeset 76991, which changed the geometry script to use a relative path to the b2 executable at the root of boost, but it isn't there in my setup. I guess this was done to avoid using trunk b2 with the release branch. The easiest thing to do would be to change the script to copy b2 into the expected location and run another documentation build. I'll do that now. Thanks for your answer and for your action. I've run the build again, can you check it? (boost-release-docs.7z).
This is the correct one! Thanks! Great that it is solved so soon.
I'm very sorry about that - indeed bjam causes big problems at my system on the release branch - it does not work anymore (because of project.jam). I've complained about that on this list but it seems I'm the only one, which I cannot imagine. Running b2 from release branch is fine - which is the cause of the change. I've had the same problem.
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.build/24525/
I think Steven's solution would work, but no one has implemented it. I should probably create a ticket.
I see. So indeed we can expect build problems starting from this release...
Anyway - sorry about breaking it that way, I should have been more careful. Thanks for taking action.
What's the best next step? Can it stay like it is or should I revert it? If the updated build script worked fine then leave it.
It might be useful to check the return value from the call and exit with an error status if appropriate, that will hopefully cause the build script to fail so that we'd catch this kind of thing earlier. I might also add a check that certain files have been created.
OK, I'll try to include that in the script. Thanks again, Barend
On 20 Feb 2012 22:37, "Barend Gehrels" <barend@xs4all.nl> wrote:
This is the correct one! Thanks! Great that it is solved so soon.
Ok, Beman will need to redo the release.
I see. So indeed we can expect build problems starting from this release...
No. The problem is on trunk, the executable has a stricter parser which causes it to reject file in release and existing versions of boost. Only people using the trunk executable will have this issue and they already affected. I guess it's in a file that isn't used by people running tests.
I've built successfully using vc7, vc8, and vc9; 32&64; on Win7-32. I've tested linking and running with projects for all these configurations on Win7-32 and Win7-64. Tom Kent
*From:* Beman Dawes (*bdawes_at_[hidden]*) *Date:* 2012-02-20 13:05:34 Release candidate files for 1.49.0 are available at http://boost.cowic.de/rc/ As always, the release managers would appreciate it if you download the candidate of your choice and give building it a try. Please report both success and failure, and anything else that is noteworthy. This helps ensure the candidates build OK before we push them out to SourceForge. Thanks, --Beman --PS: I tested the 7z version, and it built without errors on Win7/VC++ Express 2010 sp1
On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 01:05:34PM -0500, Beman Dawes wrote:
Release candidate files for 1.49.0 are available at http://boost.cowic.de/rc/
As always, the release managers would appreciate it if you download the candidate of your choice and give building it a try. Please report both success and failure, and anything else that is noteworthy.
Built ok on Debian linux, gcc 4.6.2 (tar.bz2 version). -Steve
participants (5)
-
Barend Gehrels -
Beman Dawes -
Daniel James -
Steve M. Robbins -
Tom Kent