Hi Rene,
We invite everybody porting OOo to another platform to give feedback to
this project. As rumor has it, boost 1.39 creates problems when used on
some platforms (either at compile- or runtime), so if your platform is
know to be one of those, or if you just want to be sure - please give
Hi,
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 08:30:39AM +0200, Frank Schoenheit - Sun Germany -
ham02 - Hamburg wrote:
[ Seems so, do you now strictly need 1.39?
No, I think 1.34 would do, too. As said, a previous incarnation of the
CWS compiles fine with 1.34, but again, I didn't do extensive runtime
Hi Rene,
The code as-is now will fail to build/work with system-boost 1.39,
I assume?
Most probably. Didn't explicitly try that, though.
Ciao
Frank
--
- Frank Schönheit, Software Engineer frank.schoenh...@sun.com -
- Sun Microsystems
Hi,
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 10:31:59AM +0200, Frank Schoenheit, Sun Microsystems
Germany wrote:
Hi Rene,
The code as-is now will fail to build/work with system-boost 1.39,
I assume?
Most probably. Didn't explicitly try that, though.
OK, just tried, it fails e.g. in connectivity because
Hi Rene,
So we either need something like this (when did they change that?):
[configure patch]
I'd prefer that. Making the source code dependent on different boost
versions (even if it's only about different headers to include) is too
prone to breakage, IMO.
Ciao
Frank
--
- Frank
Hi,
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 03:12:11PM +0200, Frank Schoenheit, Sun Microsystems
Germany wrote:
So we either need something like this (when did they change that?):
[configure patch]
I'd prefer that. Making the source code dependent on different boost
versions (even if it's only about
Hi,
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 08:20:50PM +0200, Frank Schoenheit, Sun Microsystems
Germany wrote:
BTW, if the problem only is that header (build still running),
no, there are much more of those.
No. (At least on Linux)
cws boost134 build with system-boost *1.34* only needs that header
