Re: Reasonable boost baseline?

[Rene Engelhard]

On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 07:20:11PM +0100, Rene Engelhard wrote:
> Well, and then a patch gets applied in master and backported to -6-4 or
> even -6-3 and breaks this again (-6-4 is where people noticed after
> https://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/core/commit/?h=libreoffice-6-4&id=73cac1031131021819a0fbd4d60554196aea230c

Correcting myself

This of course is nonsense and the logic is reversed...

(If people add a patch which only will work with let's say 1.68 this
wouldn't be catched anywhere with that patch as it's >= 1.66 and the
internal boost is still 1.71).

To catch it one would need to downgrade the internal boost to 1.66..

Regards,

Rene
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

Re: Reasonable boost baseline?

[Stephan Bergmann]

On 24/03/2020 19:20, Rene Engelhard wrote:

On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 02:41:43PM +0100, Stephan Bergmann wrote:

I'm thus going to submit 
"Set Boost baseline to 1.66, and enforce it" to master once it builds green.
(I don't intend to backport it to libreoffice-6-3 or -6-4 myself, but if
anybody sees a need for that, wouldn't mind either.)


Well, and then a patch gets applied in master and backported to -6-4 or
even -6-3 and breaks this again (-6-4 is where people noticed after
https://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/core/commit/?h=libreoffice-6-4&id=73cac1031131021819a0fbd4d60554196aea230c

So yes, I think this should be backported.


...well, then feel free to do just that :)

___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

Re: Reasonable boost baseline?

[Rene Engelhard]

On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 02:41:43PM +0100, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
> On 21/03/2020 12:28, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
> > I would like to start a discussion about the actual Boost baselines we
> > need to support on libreoffice-6-3, -6-4, and master.  Lacking any
> > communicated reason why a branch should support a specific lower
> > baseline, I would suggest we stick to the version of our bundled
> > external/boost on a branch as the baseline for that branch (and update
> > the configure.ac AX_BOOST_BASE check accordingly).
> 
> Thanks for the responses.  So contemporary SUSE-based distros appear to
> require 1.66, which is also the case for RHEL-8--based ones, while
> contemporary Debian-based distros appear to require 1.67.

require? No. (My message was badly worded, though)

It *has* to work with 1.67. Which is what is done with 1.66 as baseline
which is OK for me then :)

> I'm thus going to submit 
> "Set Boost baseline to 1.66, and enforce it" to master once it builds green.
> (I don't intend to backport it to libreoffice-6-3 or -6-4 myself, but if
> anybody sees a need for that, wouldn't mind either.)

Well, and then a patch gets applied in master and backported to -6-4 or
even -6-3 and breaks this again (-6-4 is where people noticed after
https://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/core/commit/?h=libreoffice-6-4&id=73cac1031131021819a0fbd4d60554196aea230c

So yes, I think this should be backported.

Regards,

Rene
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

Re: Reasonable boost baseline?

[Stephan Bergmann]

On 21/03/2020 12:28, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
I would like to start a discussion about the actual Boost baselines we 
need to support on libreoffice-6-3, -6-4, and master.  Lacking any 
communicated reason why a branch should support a specific lower 
baseline, I would suggest we stick to the version of our bundled 
external/boost on a branch as the baseline for that branch (and update 
the configure.ac AX_BOOST_BASE check accordingly).


Thanks for the responses.  So contemporary SUSE-based distros appear to 
require 1.66, which is also the case for RHEL-8--based ones, while 
contemporary Debian-based distros appear to require 1.67.


I'm thus going to submit  
"Set Boost baseline to 1.66, and enforce it" to master once it builds 
green.  (I don't intend to backport it to libreoffice-6-3 or -6-4 
myself, but if anybody sees a need for that, wouldn't mind either.)


___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

Re: Reasonable boost baseline?

[Rene Engelhard]

Hi,

On Sat, Mar 21, 2020 at 12:28:18PM +0100, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
>  "Fix build with boost <
> 1.68" is a request to make libreoffice-6-4 :wbuild with older Boost, so there

Thanks for pointing out that change, I built with boost1.71 (which is
available on Debian unstable and testing, but not default, see below)
for now, but that won't help for builds for older distros (aka stable),
unless I used internal boost there :/
That 

> is apparently demand for that (though the Gerrit change lacks further
> information what that demand looks like exactly, i.e., what version of
> Boost, and why people would be stuck with that version).

I'd guess 1.67 given that it is from Rico and Ubuntu has:

>From https://packages.ubuntu.com/search?keywords=libboost-dev:

xenial (16.04LTS) (libdevel): Boost C++ Libraries development files
(default version)
1.58.0.1ubuntu1: amd64 arm64 armhf i386 powerpc ppc64el s390x
bionic (18.04LTS) (libdevel): Boost C++ Libraries development files
(default version)
1.65.1.0ubuntu1: amd64 arm64 armhf i386 ppc64el s390x
disco (19.04) (libdevel): Boost C++ Libraries development files (default
version)
1.67.0.1: amd64 arm64 armhf i386 ppc64el s390x
eoan (19.10) (libdevel): Boost C++ Libraries development files (default
version)
1.67.0.2: amd64 arm64 armhf i386 ppc64el s390x
focal (libdevel): Boost C++ Libraries development files (default
version)
1.71.0.0ubuntu1: amd64 arm64 armhf i386 ppc64el s390x

For Debian:

libboost-dev | 1.67.0.1  | stable   | amd64, arm64, armel,
armhf, i386, mips, mips64el, mipsel, ppc64el, s390x
libboost-dev | 1.67.0.2+b1   | testing  | amd64, arm64, armel,
armhf, i386, mips64el, mipsel, ppc64el, s390x
libboost-dev | 1.67.0.2+b1   | unstable | amd64, arm64, armel,
armhf, i386, mips64el, mipsel, ppc64el, s390x
libboost-dev | 1.71.0.2  | experimental | amd64, arm64, armel,
armhf, i386, mips64el, mipsel, ppc64el, s390x

So yes, people are "stuck" with 1.67 on older distros and even Debian
unstable has only 1.67 (which is a problem, yes.)

> I would like to start a discussion about the actual Boost baselines we need
> to support on libreoffice-6-3, -6-4, and master.  Lacking any communicated
> reason why a branch should support a specific lower baseline, I would
> suggest we stick to the version of our bundled external/boost on a branch as
> the baseline for that branch (and update the configure.ac AX_BOOST_BASE
> check accordingly).

>From my personal POV anything >= 1.67 is fine.

Regards,

Rene
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

Re: Reasonable boost baseline?

[Tomáš Chvátal]

Hi,

We use system boost on SUSE systems and whenever the release is done I make
sure it works with old boosts.

We have boost 1.66.0 on SLE15 and all Leap 15 series will have that boost
until SLE16 is released.

On SLE12 which we still provide the latest libreoffice we use 1.54.0.

I actually created updates yesterday for both SLE12/15 and openSUSE
yesterday for 6.4.2 to provide there and it went just fine.

Well as the has_value was so trivial I rather backported the functionality
to the old boost but in past years I had to fix quite few misses as the
gerrit usually just tests with bundled boost which I would rather avoid.

So in sum SLE12 is out of the interest of the community but if you raise it
to anything higher than 1.66.0 you exclude LO native build from openSUSE
releases.

Cheers

Tom

so 21. 3. 2020 v 12:28 odesílatel Stephan Bergmann 
napsal:

> The current baseline check
>
>AX_BOOST_BASE(1.47)
>
> in configure is unchanged since 2013
> (<
> https://gerrit.libreoffice.org/plugins/gitiles/core/+diff/0d5b9f1ad4b132d8d0cc22af1f524f971c0166db%5E!>
>
> "check for boost >= 1.47 and SHA512_CTX (openssl >= 0.9.8) in
> configure"), and is likely no longer meaningful (in the sense that
> presumably nobody would try a build of recent LO with such an old Boost
> anyway).
>
> The latest version offered at  is 1.72.0, and
> our bundled external/boost is 1.69.0 on libreoffice-6-3 and -6-4 and
> 1.71.0 on master.
>
>  "Fix build with boost <
> 1.68" is a request to make libreoffice-6-4 build with older Boost, so
> there is apparently demand for that (though the Gerrit change lacks
> further information what that demand looks like exactly, i.e., what
> version of Boost, and why people would be stuck with that version).
>
> There is also back-/forth-ports of that Gerrit change to libreoffice-6-3
> () and master
> (), but it is unclear to
> me whether those are borne out of any actual demand, or were merely done
> "over-enthusiastically" in response to my question "Why would this only
> be necessary on libreoffice-6-4, but not on master?"
> (<
> https://gerrit.libreoffice.org/c/core/+/90770/4#message-1f2f934499721fea91e333ddc1f6e08bdfb766a1
> >)
>
> I would like to start a discussion about the actual Boost baselines we
> need to support on libreoffice-6-3, -6-4, and master.  Lacking any
> communicated reason why a branch should support a specific lower
> baseline, I would suggest we stick to the version of our bundled
> external/boost on a branch as the baseline for that branch (and update
> the configure.ac AX_BOOST_BASE check accordingly).
>
> ___
> LibreOffice mailing list
> LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
>
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice