RFC: remove boost-jam-native 3.1.11

RFC: remove boost-jam-native 3.1.11

[Robert Schuster]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 531 bytes --]

Hi,
I would like to remove the boost-jam-native recipe for version 3.1.11
and instead rely on version 3.1.16 which we also have.

The reason is that you cannot build the newer boost version 1.34 and
1.36 with the older boost-jam while 1.33 can work with the newer as well.

On a related note: I invested some time to get boost 1.34.1 being build
nicely including the bzip2 and gzip support. Now I see that in the 1.36
recipe those are disabled again. That is unfortunate because wesnoth
needs them.

Regards
Robert


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 268 bytes --]

Re: RFC: remove boost-jam-native 3.1.11

[Koen Kooi]

On 04-12-08 20:19, Robert Schuster wrote:
> Hi,
> I would like to remove the boost-jam-native recipe for version 3.1.11
> and instead rely on version 3.1.16 which we also have.

Can't we but those recipes (and associated patches) in obsolete/boost/? 
That way it will be outside of the default BBPATH and within reach for 
people needing/wanting it.
I'm not a big fan deletionist behaviour since we can't tell if people 
are relying on it since not everyone keeps their stuff in OE[1].

Also: what happened to removal.txt?

regards,

Koen

[1] OTOH, keeping their stuff out of OE is their own choice, with the 
associated troubles, much like external kernel modules and mainline

Re: RFC: remove boost-jam-native 3.1.11

[Philip Balister]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1392 bytes --]

Robert Schuster wrote:
> Hi,
> I would like to remove the boost-jam-native recipe for version 3.1.11
> and instead rely on version 3.1.16 which we also have.
> 
> The reason is that you cannot build the newer boost version 1.34 and
> 1.36 with the older boost-jam while 1.33 can work with the newer as well.

You don't need to remove the old one, just set things to use the new 
one. I have no problem with this.

> On a related note: I invested some time to get boost 1.34.1 being build
> nicely including the bzip2 and gzip support. Now I see that in the 1.36
> recipe those are disabled again. That is unfortunate because wesnoth
> needs them.

I think I added the recipe. I use it on the beagle, which uses gcc 4.3, 
which may have had some trouble with parts of boost. I'm OK with moving 
to a newer boost, but there are some non-backward compatible changes in 
boost that we will need to watch out for. I needed only a couple pieces 
from boost 1.36, so I built the ones I needed and set the recipe to 
DEFAULT_PREFERENCE="-1".

Philip


> 
> Regards
> Robert
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-devel mailing list
> Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel

[-- Attachment #2: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature --]
[-- Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature, Size: 3303 bytes --]

Re: RFC: remove boost-jam-native 3.1.11

[Robert Schuster]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 922 bytes --]

Hi,

Philip Balister schrieb:
>> On a related note: I invested some time to get boost 1.34.1 being build
>> nicely including the bzip2 and gzip support. Now I see that in the 1.36
>> recipe those are disabled again. That is unfortunate because wesnoth
>> needs them.
> 
> I think I added the recipe. I use it on the beagle, which uses gcc 4.3,
> which may have had some trouble with parts of boost. I'm OK with moving
> to a newer boost, but there are some non-backward compatible changes in
> boost that we will need to watch out for. I needed only a couple pieces
> from boost 1.36, so I built the ones I needed and set the recipe to
> DEFAULT_PREFERENCE="-1".
ok. I just saw that in Debian they allow installation of all kinds of
boost versions side by side. IMHO that is reasonable since boost makes
no promises regards backward compatibility.

Do want to follow this approach?

Regards
Robert


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 268 bytes --]