On Mon, Jul 17, 2023 at 4:43 PM Yuval Lifshitz <ylifshit(a)redhat.com> wrote: Also raised here (I think it's the same issue): https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/52427#issuecomment-1638203028 Thanks, Ilya > > Yuval > > > On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 7:57 PM Adam Emerson <aemerson(a)redhat.com> wrote: >> >> Hello, >> >> As of yesterday, the main branch now uses version 1.82 of Boost. >> >> The main driver of the change is improved functionality in Boost.Asio. >> C++20 coroutines are the biggest motivator, but there are other nice >> things like a type-erased handler class. >> >> A minor caveat: Due to an unfixed ODR violation introduced in >> Boost.Phoenix 1.81 (https://github.com/boostorg/phoenix/issues/111), >> we disable Phoenix's tuple support, also introduced in 1.81. Hopefully >> the bug will be fixed in the next version. >> >> Thank you. >> _______________________________________________ >> Dev mailing list -- dev(a)ceph.io >> To unsubscribe send an email to dev-leave(a)ceph.io >> > _______________________________________________ > Dev mailing list -- dev(a)ceph.io > To unsubscribe send an email to dev-leave(a)ceph.io

thanks Adam! i don't see that issue in latest runs On Mon, Jul 17, 2023 at 11:07 PM Adam Emerson <aemerson(a)redhat.com> wrote:

On 19/07/2023, Ilya Dryomov wrote: Yes. There are three things going on here: 1. It looks like things aren't completely cleaned up between make check runs, and stuff installed for one hangs around for others. This surprises me. 2. It looks like quincy's install-deps.sh wasn't updated when we switched to jammy, and it was just using whatever version of Boost was lying around from previous builds. When this was 1.79, that didn't cause problems. For 1.82, it does. 3. Proximately, the workaround for the Boost.Phoenix bug isn't in quincy. I have a candidate fix in https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/52559 Long-term, I think we should also address issue 1, the state of the bulder being overly dependendent on what was built previously.

On Thursday, July 20, 2023 5:04:36 AM EDT Ilya Dryomov wrote: Hi there, thanks for following up on this. This thread is timely because I was just talking to Adam King about how I haven't spent much time on that lately. I still occasionally update my WIP branch: https://github.com/phlogistonjohn/ ceph/tree/jjm-containerized-build - mainly when I need to use it from time to time. Unfortunately my experience with PR#48697 was a bit discouraging because it was very hard to get reviews on that and find someone willing to merge it (see: https://lists.ceph.io/hyperkitty/list/dev@ceph.io/thread/ HMD6SXLYFRPEGW4GVKY46IMXO4GB373D/#RIDNTMSFY2ZB6HAOABXSX4QQ6H3ENTE4 ). It seems to me that a lot of these build scripts fall between the cracks in the Ceph team structure. The remaining changes in the branch are a mix of assorted fixes and cleanups to make things compile or run in the container env and more build scripts to make it "easy" to kick off a containerized build. I should stop being lazy and at least file PRs for some of the small fixes. However, I wonder if there is a good forum for discussion around topics like the builds scripts. I looked at the Ceph community calendar to see if there was a meeting that fit the topic. I saw a biweekly "infrastructure" meeting that I thought I might listen in on to see if it would be appropriate to discuss the build scripts and related topics. Since I'm replying in the thread now I will also raise it here: is there a good forum to have more detailed discussions wrt design and implementation of containerized builds, the builders, the scripts, etc? Thanks! -- John M. phlogistonjohn(a)asynchrono.us jmulligan(a)redhat.com