On 24-4-2019 20:30, Patrick McLean wrote:
On Wed, 24 Apr 2019 09:35:57 -0400
Casey Bodley <cbodley(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> On 4/20/19 6:25 AM, Willem Jan Withagen wrote:
>> On 19-4-2019 03:46, Patrick McLean wrote:
>>> On Wed, 17 Apr 2019 09:50:00 -0400
>>> Casey Bodley <cbodley(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>>>> That's good to know, thanks for testing! This one is documented
>>>> as a breaking change in
> I have a branch building against 1.70 in
. I ended up adding '#if
> BOOST_VERSION < 107000' in a couple places, so we could merge the rgw
> bits without updating the minimum required version to 1.70. I don't
> see any immediate benefit to switching now; I just can't guarantee
> that rgw won't break things in the meantime if we're only testing
> builds against 1.67. What do you all think?
This branch builds for me as well, I haven't done any functional
Perhaps there could be an option to use either until a full
switch to 1.70 (or later) is required (I am not sure what kind of cmake
magic it would take to allow either, but I could take a stab at it if
I've asked one of the FreeBSD ports maintainers on the
plans for boost.
I'd like to make 2 comments:
1) The cmake foo is usually the more annoying work, since cmake and
boots do not really run in sync.
2) it would be sort of silly not to already prepare for boost going
to 1.7 and on, if somebody has done the work.
Question will be how to do the jenkins/QA/teutology testing for
this, otherwise the fault will only show when testing gets to 1.7
I checked with the guys doing boost porting, and 1.70 is on the virge
of arriving in the stable ports tree. Meaning that I'll be needing the
same fixes.... to keep head building.