On 9/26/12 4:50 PM, Pedro Giffuni wrote: > >> ________________________________ >> From: Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org> > ... >> >> On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 10:32 AM, Pedro Giffuni <p...@apache.org> wrote: >>> >>>> From: Armin Le Grand >>> ... >>>> >>>> Hi List, >>>> >>>> with current trunk I cannot build svtools with debug, e.g. >>>> >>>> cd svtools >>>> make clean >>>> make clean debug=t >>>> make -sr -j8 debug=t >>>> >>>> -> Lots of unresolved externals from stl. Yes, I'm using stlport, and I'm >>>> on windows. >>>> >>>> I tried to also build stlport with debug and delivered it, but does not >>>> help. >>>> >>>> Can someone help...? >>>> >>> >>> I can't really help but ... I think we started getting all those complains >>> from STLport stuff after I updated boost (?!). >>> >> >> Would it make sense now to revert that commit and work on a branch to >> resolve remaining issues. It is very bad for the build to be broken >> for this long. >> > > It's not broken, just fragile. The issues so far only happen in Windows with > debugging. > > I am afraid that if we revert the boost update we will never get the issues > fixed and > perhaps this is the motivation we need to resolve the stlport situation.
I don't really share your view here and having Windows not buildable with debug is a clear no go for me. You seems to be interested in updating the boost library (which is good) but not interested to solve the upcoming problems in a way that are acceptable for all others who concentrate on other important stuff. This can't really work and I think we have to find a general agreement on how we want work together on the code. I can think of - make changes and when a build bot breaks and the problem can't be fixed easily, revert the fix - build bots on our 4 official platforms have to work always -> well something where we have to work on to reach the state that we had in the past + a Mac build bot - more difficult fixes or bigger changes should be made on branches - ... > > The stlport situation is basically that we are using 3 outdated versions and > it > doesn't support clang. In general I agree but based on the fact that we have this problems now I am in favor of doing the boost upgrade on a branch together with the stlport elimination and using the compiler stl. Juergen
