From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [140.211.166.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7FE93C433FE for ; Mon, 7 Nov 2022 08:25:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0969B400C4; Mon, 7 Nov 2022 08:25:05 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp2.osuosl.org 0969B400C4 X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp2.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9miMA34DO3dm; Mon, 7 Nov 2022 08:25:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ash.osuosl.org (ash.osuosl.org [140.211.166.34]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEC3240391; Mon, 7 Nov 2022 08:25:02 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp2.osuosl.org CEC3240391 Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [140.211.166.136]) by ash.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86F6D1BF2B1 for ; Mon, 7 Nov 2022 08:25:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 422B260AC3 for ; Mon, 7 Nov 2022 08:25:01 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp3.osuosl.org 422B260AC3 X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp3.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NywUoz22hk84 for ; Mon, 7 Nov 2022 08:25:00 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp3.osuosl.org 0ADD660608 Received: from relay9-d.mail.gandi.net (relay9-d.mail.gandi.net [IPv6:2001:4b98:dc4:8::229]) by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0ADD660608 for ; Mon, 7 Nov 2022 08:24:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: (Authenticated sender: thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com) by mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E3926FF808; Mon, 7 Nov 2022 08:24:56 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2022 09:24:55 +0100 To: Andreas Ziegler Message-ID: <20221107092455.3e4c972e@windsurf> In-Reply-To: References: Organization: Bootlin X-Mailer: Claws Mail 4.1.0 (GTK 3.24.34; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailman-Original-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bootlin.com; s=gm1; t=1667809497; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=saT+UZhH0UQii13vcsBjpCpR+UZBKQlCh1LoWsrbeWo=; b=oZZBI/0qQBmS9piX3j51XCrAeXovHMa8XVvRSfRNjAJYiszx9VSdMl/JTNDlqJbe1bb1tI vOnX0AvQ5437ehz9jYugGgKOQtSLHtAv/LbMipD7xI0/EFD8vKkfMdyfkKxFBd/11X6Lwr MJlvI6r8OlkGwBHxbBCMOGQZzZ7qKVB+paVeb8Oghtia2UsHmO7wHXlpX+Zxo5E2QnoD/1 pmoW2GrvnkWrA6HWDIDkg3ExFxOHG5jsWsX8PFKJc3OxRFcxcqX+jimqpPlNMRb2whc7zJ lrDGC86Ne2Li/2nK4Eco37jKah5CPskvHKEvm+u8meFIMkV4Lilmg1zbW0V+PA== X-Mailman-Original-Authentication-Results: smtp3.osuosl.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key, unprotected) header.d=bootlin.com header.i=@bootlin.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=gm1 header.b=oZZBI/0q Subject: Re: [Buildroot] RFC: package/boost: build failure X-BeenThere: buildroot@buildroot.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion and development of buildroot List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: Thomas Petazzoni via buildroot Reply-To: Thomas Petazzoni Cc: buildroot Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: buildroot-bounces@buildroot.org Sender: "buildroot" On Mon, 07 Nov 2022 06:38:43 +0000 Andreas Ziegler wrote: > The development branch of boost/intrusive contains a fix for this > failure which, unfortunately, is rather longish [2]. Easy extraction of > the relevant part of the patch is not possible, due to massive changes > to the whole code. > > I can think of three options to deal with this issue: > > (1) Use the commit [2] as is, even if it changes more than the failing > code To me the commit [2] is not that large, and would be OK to backport as an interim solution until 1.81 is released. Thanks a lot for this investigation work, much appreciated! Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, co-owner and CEO, Bootlin Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering and training https://bootlin.com _______________________________________________ buildroot mailing list buildroot@buildroot.org https://lists.buildroot.org/mailman/listinfo/buildroot