Actually we are compiling and linking against 1.45 on Red Hat 5 these days. 
However, it seems like Red Hat 6 ships with version 1.41. Hence, version >= 
1.41 is unproblematic from my end. Any larger version and we need to discuss 
how to support it (static linking to avoid dependency issues or out-of-tree 
custom install of boost like we now do for Red Hat 5). Joakim, feel free to 
share your thoughts.

Cheers,
Alf

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On 
Behalf Of Roland Kaufmann
Sent: 15. november 2013 15:04
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [OPM] Boost versions

On 2013-11-15 12:43, Joakim Hove wrote:
> The community as a whole decides which boost version to for; and how
> to relate to the Boost fs question

At some point we must switch anyway; maybe this is the time to bump up to boost 
>= 1.44 (there is even a package for that in EPEL5, and a PPA for Lucid 
backports, so it is accessible).

> Of course we can fiddle with cmake+++ to ensure that the opm-parser
> works with boost version 1.39

If it is desired that OPM should still work with 1.39, I think that the best 
way to do that is to create a small layer that encapsulates the differences and 
then:

#include <boost/version.hpp>
#if BOOST_VERSION >= 144000
   /* boost::filesystem version 3 */
#else
   /* boost::filesystem version 2 */
#endif

not that I think that is a good solution, though.

--
        Roland.

_______________________________________________
Opm mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.opm-project.org/mailman/listinfo/opm

-------------------------------------------------------------------
The information contained in this message may be CONFIDENTIAL and is
intended for the addressee only. Any unauthorised use, dissemination of the
information or copying of this message is prohibited. If you are not the
addressee, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and delete
this message.
Thank you

_______________________________________________
Opm mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.opm-project.org/mailman/listinfo/opm

Reply via email to