Re: [pkg-boost-devel] Boost defaults change (1.46.1 -- 1.48)
Hi, I'm bcc'ing this email to maintainers of the list of packages, below. Each of you, I'd appreciate it if you could check with the upstream authors whether a fix is already available. Please send an update to the appropriate bug with the upstream response or mark the bug forwarded to the upstream issue. I'm hoping that some of these can be fixed very quickly and we'll shortly know the true impact of a boost defaults change. libreoffice 1:3.4.4-2 Failed [GCC_ERROR] #652784: libreoffice: FTBFS: acceleratorcache.cxx:64:29: error: no match for 'operator=' in '((framework::AcceleratorCache*)this)-framework::AcceleratorCache::m_lCommand2Keys = rCopy.framework::AcceleratorCache::m_lCommand2Keys' This is already forwarded etc. and I already said various times that it will be in the next upload (currently planned to be 3.4.5-1, see http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/ReleasePlan/3.4#3.4.5_release). But what worries me more is that you AGAIN ignored http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=652681. Ignoring #652681 doesn't make the build failure on the version which is supposed to be in wheezy go away... Regards, Rene -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20111228114734.111...@gmx.net
Re: [pkg-boost-devel] Boost defaults change (1.46.1 -- 1.48)
Steve M. Robbins steve at sumost.ca writes: OK, with thanks to Lucas Nussbaum for the build results, I can report that only the following 23 of 237 boost rdep packages failed to build with boost-defaults pointing to 1.48. This shouldn't take a lot of Hrm, I don’t see aptitude in there, but get this: […] checking for boost/fusion/algorithm/transformation/join.hpp... yes checking boost/fusion/algorithm/transformation/push_back.hpp usability... yes checking boost/fusion/algorithm/transformation/push_back.hpp presence... yes checking for boost/fusion/algorithm/transformation/push_back.hpp... yes checking boost/fusion/algorithm/transformation/push_front.hpp usability... no checking boost/fusion/algorithm/transformation/push_front.hpp presence... yes configure: WARNING: boost/fusion/algorithm/transformation/push_front.hpp: present but cannot be compiled configure: WARNING: boost/fusion/algorithm/transformation/push_front.hpp: check for missing prerequisite headers? configure: WARNING: boost/fusion/algorithm/transformation/push_front.hpp: see the Autoconf documentation configure: WARNING: boost/fusion/algorithm/transformation/push_front.hpp: section Present But Cannot Be Compiled configure: WARNING: boost/fusion/algorithm/transformation/push_front.hpp: proceeding with the compiler's result checking for boost/fusion/algorithm/transformation/push_front.hpp... no configure: error: in `/tmp/buildd/aptitude-0.6.4/build-gtk': configure: error: Boost install not found, too old, or incomplete; install libboost-dev. See `config.log' for more details make: *** [build-stamp-gtk] Error 1 dpkg-buildpackage: error: fakeroot debian/rules binary-arch gave error exit status 2 E: Failed autobuilding of package This is aptitude_0.6.4-1.2.dsc with libboost1.48-dev (1.48.0-2) and friends. PS: Please Cc me on replies of interest to me, I don’t read here. Thanks. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/loom.20111228t144849...@post.gmane.org
Re: [pkg-boost-devel] Boost defaults change (1.46.1 -- 1.48)
On 28/12/11 at 13:50 +, Thorsten Glaser wrote: Steve M. Robbins steve at sumost.ca writes: OK, with thanks to Lucas Nussbaum for the build results, I can report that only the following 23 of 237 boost rdep packages failed to build with boost-defaults pointing to 1.48. This shouldn't take a lot of Hrm, I don’t see aptitude in there, but get this: Oops, for some reason it seems that only 13702 source packages were rebuilt. So there might be some other build failures related to boost. Lucas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20111228182345.ga15...@xanadu.blop.info
Re: [pkg-boost-devel] Boost defaults change (1.46.1 -- 1.48)
On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 12:47:34PM +0100, Rene Engelhard wrote: But what worries me more is that you AGAIN ignored http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=652681. I was working off a rebuild of SID. Perhaps my last message didn't clearly state that. So all the bugs reported were for the SID versions of the package. 652681 concerns a newer version found only in experimental as far as I know. That's not to say that I don't think the bug is important. It is important. Ignoring #652681 doesn't make the build failure on the version which is supposed to be in wheezy go away... Of course. So if you want my advice, here is what I would do about it. First, to help the gcc maintainers, complete the bug report according to file:///usr/share/doc/gcc-4.6/README.Bugs. Second, when the time comes to upload libreoffice 3.5 to unstable, select one of the two following options: 1. If 652681 is fixed, upload as-is. 2. If not, change boost build-deps to 1.46 version and upload. Hope this helps, -Steve signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Boost defaults change (1.46.1 -- 1.48)
On 26/12/11 at 22:40 -0600, Steve M. Robbins wrote: Hello, The latest Boost (1.48) is now in testing, and I'd like to switch the defaults. My first plan was to simply announce the switch then make it. I did so and got an immediate email from the release team asking to revert the default change, which I did. On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 08:00:15PM -0600, Steve M. Robbins wrote: On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 10:33:26PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote: I heard of at least two failures in the last couple of hours: libreoffice (#652681), and wesnoth (#652677). As such, I'd appreciate if you could: - revert boost-defaults to 1.46 for the time being Done. - test-build at least the most prominent reverse deps against 1.48 before bumping it again - contact debian-release before that bump, so we can coordinate a timing that doesn't suck with regards to other ongoing transitions. Now I'd like to coordinate a time for the change. I'd like to point out that any resulting build failures are quite easy to fix: either (a) contact package upstream for boost 1.48 changes; or (b) change the build-dependency from libboostfoo-dev to libboostfoo1.46-dev. It would be quite helpful to do a rebuild of the 237 boost reverse dependencies. Lucas Nussbaum seems to be able to do this: can you run a rebuild with updated boost-defaults? I already did that, since i did a rebuild while boost-defaults was pointing to .46. You can find the results in collab-qa svn, in archive-rebuilds/2011-12-20-lsid64-amd64 If it's only 237 packages, I would prefer if you rebuilt them manually: the time taken to organize the rebuild is likely to be higher than the time it would take to just rebuild them locally. Lucas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20111227154521.ga23...@xanadu.blop.info
Re: Boost defaults change (1.46.1 -- 1.48)
Hi! On Tue Dec 27, 2011 10:42:07AM +0100, Rene Engelhard wrote: I'd like to point out that any resulting build failures are quite easy to fix: either (a) contact package upstream for boost 1.48 changes; or It is? #652681 doesn't look like it. Will 1.46 be around long enough that reverting to 1.46 is an option there? The wheezy release should be with 3.5.0.. As long as something depends on 1.46, I assume that it should be around. The current situation is sub-optimal, because almost everything depends on the non-versioned boost libs of boost-defaults, despite boost's tendency to break packages when switching to a new version. The question is, which strategy is better? (1) Clearly record the dependencies in packages that depend on boost, i.e., Build-Depends on libboost-foo1.46-dev instead of libboost-foo-dev, or (2) let boost-defaults decide which version of boost is the currently stable boost. IMHO (2) just hides FTBSes of the packages. Cheers, TK -- Thomas Krennwallner University assistant . TU Wien - Vienna University of Technology Institute of Information Systems Favoritenstrasse 9-11, 1040 Wien, Austria . T: +43 1 58801 18469 F: +43 1 58801 918469 tkren AT kr DOT tuwien DOT ac DOT at http://www.kr.tuwien.ac.at/staff/tkren/ . DVR: 0005886 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20111227102814.ga15...@kr.tuwien.ac.at
Re: Boost defaults change (1.46.1 -- 1.48)
Hi, I'd like to point out that any resulting build failures are quite easy to fix: either (a) contact package upstream for boost 1.48 changes; or It is? #652681 doesn't look like it. Will 1.46 be around long enough that reverting to 1.46 is an option there? The wheezy release should be with 3.5.0.. It would be quite helpful to do a rebuild of the 237 boost reverse dependencies. Lucas Nussbaum seems to be able to do this: can you run a rebuild with updated boost-defaults? At least libreoffice is affected by http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=652784. (Pending and just needs upload, which is planned mid-Jan: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/ReleasePlan/3.4#3.4.5_release) Regards, Rene -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20111227094207.26...@gmx.net
Re: Boost defaults change (1.46.1 -- 1.48)
On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 10:42:07AM +0100, Rene Engelhard wrote: Hi, I'd like to point out that any resulting build failures are quite easy to fix: either (a) contact package upstream for boost 1.48 changes; or It is? #652681 doesn't look like it. I'll just note that an Internal Compiler Error is always a bug in the compiler, by definition. It may be true that boost exposed it, but boost is not the cause of the compiler bug. It would be helpful if you provided more details for the gcc folks. Will 1.46 be around long enough that reverting to 1.46 is an option there? Absolutely, 1.46 is an option. That's why I suggested it. Debian has been releasing with at least two boost versions for a while now. The less-up-to-date version is often dictated by needs of other packages, such as libreoffice. At least libreoffice is affected by http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=652784. The upstream bug reports a one-liner fix of building with -std=c++0x. Does that work for Debian? Cheers, -Steve signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Boost defaults change (1.46.1 -- 1.48)
On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 04:45:21PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: On 26/12/11 at 22:40 -0600, Steve M. Robbins wrote: It would be quite helpful to do a rebuild of the 237 boost reverse dependencies. Lucas Nussbaum seems to be able to do this: can you run a rebuild with updated boost-defaults? I already did that, since i did a rebuild while boost-defaults was pointing to .46. You can find the results in collab-qa svn, in archive-rebuilds/2011-12-20-lsid64-amd64 Great, thanks! If it's only 237 packages, I would prefer if you rebuilt them manually: the time taken to organize the rebuild is likely to be higher than the time it would take to just rebuild them locally. Note that I am starting from scratch. I know how to use pbuilder and how to manually download and build a package. At my present rate of 1-2 per week, it would take me several years to rebuild them all locally. Are there scripts etc to automate this somewhere? Thanks, -Steve signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Boost defaults change (1.46.1 -- 1.48)
On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 11:28:14AM +0100, Thomas Krennwallner wrote: As long as something depends on 1.46, I assume that it should be around. The current situation is sub-optimal, because almost everything depends on the non-versioned boost libs of boost-defaults, despite boost's tendency to break packages when switching to a new version. In fairness, boost doesn't break everything on each release, though it often feels like it :-). One issue with boost is that it is really a conglomeration of several dozen libraries, some of which are quite stable. Others are less so, sometimes by intention, sometimes inadvertently. The other big issue with boost is they have an agressive release schedule of 4 times/year. The question is, which strategy is better? (1) Clearly record the dependencies in packages that depend on boost, i.e., Build-Depends on libboost-foo1.46-dev instead of libboost-foo-dev, or (2) let boost-defaults decide which version of boost is the currently stable boost. IMHO (2) just hides FTBSes of the packages. I will offer a third strategy: (3) Offer boost-defaults for: advanced users, for packages that generally stick to the stable parts of boost, for packages that or have upstream authors that track the latest boost. Other packages can build to versioned boost dev packages known to work. Due to the frequent boost releases, there is a large cost to using the versioned dependencies, so I encourage using the non-versioned packages when possible. This is an evolving process and I think we're still learning which category a given package might fall into. So it's not a surprise that some adjustments are necessary with each boost release. And, of course, there are the standard number of bugs in a given boost release so even if unversioned devs is the right strategy for a given package, a new boost may still break it until a boost bug is fixed. Regards, -Steve signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Boost defaults change (1.46.1 -- 1.48)
On Tue, 2011-12-27 at 10:52 -0600, Steve M. Robbins wrote: On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 10:42:07AM +0100, Rene Engelhard wrote: Will 1.46 be around long enough that reverting to 1.46 is an option there? Absolutely, 1.46 is an option. That's why I suggested it. Debian has been releasing with at least two boost versions for a while now. The less-up-to-date version is often dictated by needs of other packages, such as libreoffice. fwiw, Squeeze shipped with only one boost version (1.42). Regards, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1325010736.5685.4.ca...@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org
Re: Boost defaults change (1.46.1 -- 1.48)
On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 06:32:16PM +, Adam D. Barratt wrote: On Tue, 2011-12-27 at 10:52 -0600, Steve M. Robbins wrote: On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 10:42:07AM +0100, Rene Engelhard wrote: Will 1.46 be around long enough that reverting to 1.46 is an option there? Absolutely, 1.46 is an option. That's why I suggested it. Debian has been releasing with at least two boost versions for a while now. The less-up-to-date version is often dictated by needs of other packages, such as libreoffice. fwiw, Squeeze shipped with only one boost version (1.42). I stand corrected. [I mostly pay attention to unstable, which has generally had two versions available for a long while. I'm going to avoid making absolute statements now :-)] -Steve signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [pkg-boost-devel] Boost defaults change (1.46.1 -- 1.48)
On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 11:20:16AM -0600, Steve M. Robbins wrote: On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 04:45:21PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: On 26/12/11 at 22:40 -0600, Steve M. Robbins wrote: It would be quite helpful to do a rebuild of the 237 boost reverse dependencies. Lucas Nussbaum seems to be able to do this: can you run a rebuild with updated boost-defaults? I already did that, since i did a rebuild while boost-defaults was pointing to .46. You can find the results in collab-qa svn, in archive-rebuilds/2011-12-20-lsid64-amd64 OK, with thanks to Lucas Nussbaum for the build results, I can report that only the following 23 of 237 boost rdep packages failed to build with boost-defaults pointing to 1.48. This shouldn't take a lot of effort to bring down to a manageable level and it looks like bugs are already filed. I'm bcc'ing this email to maintainers of the list of packages, below. Each of you, I'd appreciate it if you could check with the upstream authors whether a fix is already available. Please send an update to the appropriate bug with the upstream response or mark the bug forwarded to the upstream issue. I'm hoping that some of these can be fixed very quickly and we'll shortly know the true impact of a boost defaults change. Thanks very much, -Steve agave 0.4.7-2 Failed [GCC_ERROR] #564850 RECHECK anytun 0.3.3-2.1 Failed [GCC_ERROR] #652767: anytun: FTBFS: syncServer.cpp:112:92: error: 'boost::asio::ip::tcp::acceptor' has no member named 'io_service' drizzle 2011.03.13-1 Failed [UNKNOWN] #647743 ember 0.5.7-1.1 Failed [BUILDDEPS] #629767: ember: FTBFS: build-dependency not installable: libceguiogre-dev RECHECK fgrun 1.6.0-1 Failed [UNKNOWN] #652775: fgrun: FTBFS: Singleton.hxx:4:43: fatal error: boost/pool/detail/singleton.hpp: No such file or directory flightgear 2.4.0-1 Failed [UNKNOWN] #652797: flightgear: FTBFS: Singleton.hxx:4:43: fatal error: boost/pool/detail/singleton.hpp: No such file or directory gnuradio 3.2.2.dfsg-1.1 Failed [UNKNOWN] #642716: gnuradio: FTBFS: gr_vmcircbuf_createfilemapping: createfilemapping is not available RECHECK gpsdrive 2.10~pre4-6.dfsg-5.1 Failed [GCC_ERROR] #646446: gpsdrive: FTBFS: mapnik.cpp:33:15: error: 'mapnik::Image32' has not been declared RECHECK libreoffice 1:3.4.4-2 Failed [GCC_ERROR] #652784: libreoffice: FTBFS: acceleratorcache.cxx:64:29: error: no match for 'operator=' in '((framework::AcceleratorCache*)this)-framework::AcceleratorCache::m_lCommand2Keys = rCopy.framework::AcceleratorCache::m_lCommand2Keys' openvrml 0.18.8-5 Failed [GCC_ERROR] #652790: openvrml: FTBFS: scope_guard.hpp:122:29: error: 'boost::mpl' has not been declared ovito 0.9.2-1 Failed [UNKNOWN] #652795: ovito: FTBFS: usr/include/boost/type_traits/detail/has_binary_operator.hp:50: Parse error at BOOST_JOIN pinot 0.96-1.1 Failed [GCC_ERROR] #652786: pinot: FTBFS: Memory.h:184:11: error: 'singleton_default' in namespace 'boost::details::pool' does not name a type python-visual 1:5.12-1.3 Failed [GCC_ERROR] #652798: python-visual: FTBFS: random_device.cpp:30:63: error: 'const result_type boost::random::random_device::min_value' is not a static member of 'class boost::random::random_device' qt-gstreamer 0.10.1-2 Failed [UNKNOWN] TODO NEWFAIL salome 5.1.3-12 Failed [BUILDDEPS] #629765: salome: FTBFS: build-dependency not installable: sip4 RECHECK scenic 0.6.3-1 Failed [UNKNOWN] #615772 RECHECK simgear 2.4.0-1 Failed [UNKNOWN] #652788: simgear: FTBFS: ../../simgear/structure/Singleton.hxx:4:43: fatal error: boost/pool/detail/singleton.hpp: No such file or directory smc 1.9-4 Failed [UNKNOWN] #646464: smc: FTBFS: audio/../core/../objects/../objects/../video/video.h:26:62: fatal error: RendererModules/OpenGLGUIRenderer/openglrenderer.h: No such file or directory RECHECK spring 0.82.7.1+dfsg1-3 Failed [GCC_ERROR] #652768: spring: FTBFS: FPUSettings.h:322:15: error: expected unqualified-id before '__const' sslsniff 0.8-2 Failed [GCC_ERROR] #652756: sslsniff: FTBFS: SSLConnectionManager.cpp:47:74: error: 'boost::asio::ip::tcp::acceptor' has no member named 'io_service' strigi 0.7.6-2 Failed [UNKNOWN] #618118: strigi: FTBFS: dh_makeshlibs: dpkg-gensymbols -plibsearchclient0 -Idebian/libsearchclient0.symbols.amd64 -Pdebian/libsearchclient0 returned exit code 1 RECHECK wesnoth-1.8 1:1.8.6-1 Failed [GCC_ERROR] #652765: wesnoth-1.8: FTBFS: noncopyable.hpp:27:7: error: 'boost::noncopyable_::noncopyable::noncopyable(const boost::noncopyable_::noncopyable)' is private witty 3.1.10-1 Failed [GCC_ERROR] #642674: witty: FTBFS: WPdfImage.C:74:30: error: 'HPDF_UseUTFEncodings' was not declared in this scope RECHECK signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Boost defaults change (1.46.1 -- 1.48)
On Tue, 27 Dec 2011 11:20:16 -0600, Steve M. Robbins wrote: Note that I am starting from scratch. I know how to use pbuilder and how to manually download and build a package. At my present rate of 1-2 per week, it would take me several years to rebuild them all locally. Are there scripts etc to automate this somewhere? An example is in the pbuilder package: /usr/share/doc/pbuilder/examples/rebuild/ Cheers, gregor -- .''`. Homepage: http://info.comodo.priv.at/ - OpenPGP key ID: 0x8649AA06 : :' : Debian GNU/Linux user, admin, developer - http://www.debian.org/ `. `' Member of VIBE!AT SPI, fellow of Free Software Foundation Europe `-NP: Johnny Cash: I Hung My Head signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Boost defaults change (1.46.1 -- 1.48)
Hello, The latest Boost (1.48) is now in testing, and I'd like to switch the defaults. My first plan was to simply announce the switch then make it. I did so and got an immediate email from the release team asking to revert the default change, which I did. On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 08:00:15PM -0600, Steve M. Robbins wrote: On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 10:33:26PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote: I heard of at least two failures in the last couple of hours: libreoffice (#652681), and wesnoth (#652677). As such, I'd appreciate if you could: - revert boost-defaults to 1.46 for the time being Done. - test-build at least the most prominent reverse deps against 1.48 before bumping it again - contact debian-release before that bump, so we can coordinate a timing that doesn't suck with regards to other ongoing transitions. Now I'd like to coordinate a time for the change. I'd like to point out that any resulting build failures are quite easy to fix: either (a) contact package upstream for boost 1.48 changes; or (b) change the build-dependency from libboostfoo-dev to libboostfoo1.46-dev. It would be quite helpful to do a rebuild of the 237 boost reverse dependencies. Lucas Nussbaum seems to be able to do this: can you run a rebuild with updated boost-defaults? Thanks, -Steve signature.asc Description: Digital signature
