Hi, Does anyone know what's going on with boost? It seems it was downgraded from 1.42.0 to 1.41.0 a while back, and hasn't been updated to the latest 1.43.0. I was going to build the latest on my machine, but if there's something wrong with it I might hold off or go with the older version. I know there was some talk about splitting it up; is that the reason? Daniel
On 18/06/10 16:24, Daniel Bumke wrote:
Hi,
Does anyone know what's going on with boost? It seems it was downgraded from 1.42.0 to 1.41.0 a while back, and hasn't been updated to the latest 1.43.0.
I was going to build the latest on my machine, but if there's something wrong with it I might hold off or go with the older version. I know there was some talk about splitting it up; is that the reason?
From memory 1.42 broke encfs. The encfs developers blame boost, the boost developers blame encfs, so nothing was done in recent updates from either side. So we either update boost or break encfs... Allan
On 18/06/10 13:30, Allan McRae wrote:
From memory 1.42 broke encfs. The encfs developers blame boost, the boost developers blame encfs, so nothing was done in recent updates from either side.
So we either update boost or break encfs... Thanks for the tip! Presumably you mean either we *don't* update boost or break encfs?
What a mess. For anyone interested you can read up on it here: http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=92209 https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/3990 http://code.google.com/p/encfs/issues/detail?id=60 Boost really seems to have no interest in fixing this, but it looks like encfs may have found a work-around (the bug above was closed yesterday with status 'released'). Latest encfs release: http://code.google.com/p/encfs/updates/list Maybe worth another try with the new encfs version?
On 06/18/2010 09:30 AM, Allan McRae wrote:
On 18/06/10 16:24, Daniel Bumke wrote:
Hi,
Does anyone know what's going on with boost? It seems it was downgraded from 1.42.0 to 1.41.0 a while back, and hasn't been updated to the latest 1.43.0.
I was going to build the latest on my machine, but if there's something wrong with it I might hold off or go with the older version. I know there was some talk about splitting it up; is that the reason?
From memory 1.42 broke encfs. The encfs developers blame boost, the boost developers blame encfs, so nothing was done in recent updates from either side.
So we either update boost or break encfs...
Allan
encfs devs released a new version which works with > 1.41. yesterday i built 1.43 but the splitting is holding me back. It has a very annoying build system and until now we have in the bugtracker one which is copying files around from a directory to another. FS#19749 -- Ionuț
On 18.06.2010 11:38, Ionuț Bîru wrote:
On 06/18/2010 09:30 AM, Allan McRae wrote:
On 18/06/10 16:24, Daniel Bumke wrote:
Hi,
Does anyone know what's going on with boost? It seems it was downgraded from 1.42.0 to 1.41.0 a while back, and hasn't been updated to the latest 1.43.0.
I was going to build the latest on my machine, but if there's something wrong with it I might hold off or go with the older version. I know there was some talk about splitting it up; is that the reason?
From memory 1.42 broke encfs. The encfs developers blame boost, the boost developers blame encfs, so nothing was done in recent updates from either side.
So we either update boost or break encfs...
Allan
encfs devs released a new version which works with > 1.41.
yesterday i built 1.43 but the splitting is holding me back. It has a very annoying build system and until now we have in the bugtracker one which is copying files around from a directory to another. FS#19749
What's the issue here though? We have a working split package and everyone is happy? Bjam is a crappy build system but until CMake is more actively maintained by Boost (last boost-cmake release was 1.41) it'll have to do. Boost is an important part of C++ development, it should not go without update in Arch. -- Sven-Hendrik
On Fri 18 Jun 2010 11:52 +0200, Sven-Hendrik Haase wrote:
On 18.06.2010 11:38, Ionuț Bîru wrote:
On 06/18/2010 09:30 AM, Allan McRae wrote:
On 18/06/10 16:24, Daniel Bumke wrote:
Does anyone know what's going on with boost? It seems it was downgraded from 1.42.0 to 1.41.0 a while back, and hasn't been updated to the latest 1.43.0.
I was going to build the latest on my machine, but if there's something wrong with it I might hold off or go with the older version. I know there was some talk about splitting it up; is that the reason?
From memory 1.42 broke encfs. The encfs developers blame boost, the boost developers blame encfs, so nothing was done in recent updates from either side.
So we either update boost or break encfs...
encfs devs released a new version which works with > 1.41.
yesterday i built 1.43 but the splitting is holding me back. It has a very annoying build system and until now we have in the bugtracker one which is copying files around from a directory to another. FS#19749
What's the issue here though? We have a working split package and everyone is happy? Bjam is a crappy build system but until CMake is more actively maintained by Boost (last boost-cmake release was 1.41) it'll have to do. Boost is an important part of C++ development, it should not go without update in Arch.
Wow, this is kind of depressing. Why would some package in community block an established library from being upgraded in extra?
On 06/18/2010 01:56 PM, Loui Chang wrote:
On Fri 18 Jun 2010 11:52 +0200, Sven-Hendrik Haase wrote:
On 18.06.2010 11:38, Ionuț Bîru wrote:
On 06/18/2010 09:30 AM, Allan McRae wrote:
On 18/06/10 16:24, Daniel Bumke wrote:
Does anyone know what's going on with boost? It seems it was downgraded from 1.42.0 to 1.41.0 a while back, and hasn't been updated to the latest 1.43.0.
I was going to build the latest on my machine, but if there's something wrong with it I might hold off or go with the older version. I know there was some talk about splitting it up; is that the reason?
From memory 1.42 broke encfs. The encfs developers blame boost, the boost developers blame encfs, so nothing was done in recent updates from either side.
So we either update boost or break encfs...
encfs devs released a new version which works with> 1.41.
yesterday i built 1.43 but the splitting is holding me back. It has a very annoying build system and until now we have in the bugtracker one which is copying files around from a directory to another. FS#19749
What's the issue here though? We have a working split package and everyone is happy? Bjam is a crappy build system but until CMake is more actively maintained by Boost (last boost-cmake release was 1.41) it'll have to do. Boost is an important part of C++ development, it should not go without update in Arch.
Wow, this is kind of depressing. Why would some package in community block an established library from being upgraded in extra?
until now yes, from now own NO. :D expect new boost in testing + todo today -- Ionuț
On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 06:56:48 -0400 Loui Chang <louipc.ist@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri 18 Jun 2010 11:52 +0200, Sven-Hendrik Haase wrote:
On 18.06.2010 11:38, Ionuț Bîru wrote:
On 06/18/2010 09:30 AM, Allan McRae wrote:
On 18/06/10 16:24, Daniel Bumke wrote:
Does anyone know what's going on with boost? It seems it was downgraded from 1.42.0 to 1.41.0 a while back, and hasn't been updated to the latest 1.43.0.
What's the issue here though? We have a working split package and everyone is happy? Bjam is a crappy build system but until CMake is more actively maintained by Boost (last boost-cmake release was 1.41) it'll have to do. Boost is an important part of C++ development, it should not go without update in Arch.
Wow, this is kind of depressing. Why would some package in community block an established library from being upgraded in extra?
In this special case, because it caused data loss of probably very important files (hence encrypted) _without_ prior warning. But there seems to be a trend starting in this direction which worries me a little. IIRC there is nothing holding back Xorg 1.8 except for legacy nvidia drivers, and that for quite a while. If that is true, it's even more depressing for me, since nobody waited for us poor ATI R500 users when catalyst dropped support. :)
On Fri, 2010-06-18 at 23:56 +0200, Alexander Duscheleit wrote:
But there seems to be a trend starting in this direction which worries me a little. IIRC there is nothing holding back Xorg 1.8 except for legacy nvidia drivers, and that for quite a while. If that is true, it's even more depressing for me, since nobody waited for us poor ATI R500 users when catalyst dropped support. :)
Which is not true... The reason for dropping catalyst is that they only release drivers when Ubuntu does a release. if Ubuntu doesn't ship a version of xorg-server, no driver will be made. The reason for holding back xorg-server 1.8 in testing was because of bugs and crashes. Until a week or two ago when I did the latest changes to the Intel driver, I couldn't get OpenGL on intel stable for more than 30 seconds. Also, the kernel contais massive changes for AMD and Intel drivers, so we basically needed the new kernel that was also in testing.
participants (7)
-
Alexander Duscheleit
-
Allan McRae
-
Daniel Bumke
-
Ionuț Bîru
-
Jan de Groot
-
Loui Chang
-
Sven-Hendrik Haase