On 09/06/20 00:02 -0400, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote:
On Thu, 2020-05-28 at 18:27 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 28/05/20 09:44 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> I'm starting the rebuilds for Boost 1.73.0 and packages that depend on
> it, using the f33-boost side tag.
>
> If you see "Rebuilt for
On Thu, 2020-05-28 at 18:27 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 28/05/20 09:44 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > I'm starting the rebuilds for Boost 1.73.0 and packages that depend on
> > it, using the f33-boost side tag.
> >
> > If you see "Rebuilt for Boost 1.73.0" in the changelog for one of
On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 1:58 PM Jonathan Wakely
wrote:
> boost-1.73.0-4.fc33 is building now:
>
> Building boost-1.73.0-4.fc33 for rawhide
> Created task: 45462220
> Task info: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=45462220
>
> I've also pushed one extra fix to freecad (just adding
On 05/06/20 17:59 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 05/06/20 17:42 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 05/06/20 09:00 -0500, Richard Shaw wrote:
Next problem...
/usr/include/boost/geometry/index/detail/rtree/node/variant_visitor.hpp:51:25:
error: no matching function for call to
On 05/06/20 17:42 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 05/06/20 09:00 -0500, Richard Shaw wrote:
Next problem...
/usr/include/boost/geometry/index/detail/rtree/node/variant_visitor.hpp:51:25:
error: no matching function for call to
On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 11:43 AM Jonathan Wakely
wrote:
> On 05/06/20 09:00 -0500, Richard Shaw wrote:
> The next error tells you the reason it couldn't be called:
>
> /usr/include/boost/variant/detail/apply_visitor_unary.hpp:46:1: error:
> 'typedef void boost::static_visitor::result_type' is
On 05/06/20 09:00 -0500, Richard Shaw wrote:
Next problem...
/usr/include/boost/geometry/index/detail/rtree/node/variant_visitor.hpp:51:25:
error: no matching function for call to
'apply_visitor(boost::geometry::index::detail::rtree::visitors::insert, WireJoiner::PntGetter>::members_holder,
Next problem...
/usr/include/boost/geometry/index/detail/rtree/node/variant_visitor.hpp:51:25:
error: no matching function for call to
'apply_visitor(boost::geometry::index::detail::rtree::visitors::insert, WireJoiner::PntGetter>::members_holder,
On 03/06/20 15:21 -0500, Richard Shaw wrote:
On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 3:16 PM Jonathan Wakely
wrote:
On 03/06/20 20:25 +0100, Ian McInerney wrote:
>On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 8:08 PM Richard Shaw wrote:
>
>> Ok, one problem after another with FreeCAD, maybe I'll get them fixed
>> before f33 is
On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 3:16 PM Jonathan Wakely
wrote:
> On 03/06/20 20:25 +0100, Ian McInerney wrote:
> >On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 8:08 PM Richard Shaw wrote:
> >
> >> Ok, one problem after another with FreeCAD, maybe I'll get them fixed
> >> before f33 is released :)
> >>
> >>
On 03/06/20 20:25 +0100, Ian McInerney wrote:
On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 8:08 PM Richard Shaw wrote:
Ok, one problem after another with FreeCAD, maybe I'll get them fixed
before f33 is released :)
/builddir/build/BUILD/FreeCAD-0.18.4/src/Gui/DAGView/DAGView.cpp: In
constructor
On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 8:08 PM Richard Shaw wrote:
> Ok, one problem after another with FreeCAD, maybe I'll get them fixed
> before f33 is released :)
>
> /builddir/build/BUILD/FreeCAD-0.18.4/src/Gui/DAGView/DAGView.cpp: In
> constructor 'Gui::DAG::View::View(QWidget*)':
>
Ok, one problem after another with FreeCAD, maybe I'll get them fixed
before f33 is released :)
/builddir/build/BUILD/FreeCAD-0.18.4/src/Gui/DAGView/DAGView.cpp: In
constructor 'Gui::DAG::View::View(QWidget*)':
/builddir/build/BUILD/FreeCAD-0.18.4/src/Gui/DAGView/DAGView.cpp:55:100:
error: '_1'
On 6/3/20 4:50 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 03/06/20 13:36 +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
>> On 03. 06. 20 13:32, Till Hofmann wrote:
>>> Yes, that's what I meant. I'm not going to test patches by submitting
>>> builds over and over again, that's not really time efficient. I'll just
>>> wait
On 03/06/20 13:36 +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 03. 06. 20 13:32, Till Hofmann wrote:
Yes, that's what I meant. I'm not going to test patches by submitting
builds over and over again, that's not really time efficient. I'll just
wait until it shows up in mock.
$ mock -r fedora-rawhide-x86_64
On 03. 06. 20 13:32, Till Hofmann wrote:
Yes, that's what I meant. I'm not going to test patches by submitting
builds over and over again, that's not really time efficient. I'll just
wait until it shows up in mock.
$ mock -r fedora-rawhide-x86_64 --enablerepo=local install boost-devel
...
On 6/3/20 1:01 PM, Frantisek Zatloukal wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 12:46 PM Jonathan Wakely
> mailto:jwak...@fedoraproject.org>> wrote:
>
> On 03/06/20 12:35 +0200, Till Hofmann wrote:
> >
> >
> >On 6/2/20 5:24 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> >> ### C++ includes
>
On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 12:46 PM Jonathan Wakely
wrote:
> On 03/06/20 12:35 +0200, Till Hofmann wrote:
> >
> >
> >On 6/2/20 5:24 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> >> ### C++ includes
> >>
> >> Several packages failed to build because they couldn't find C++
> >> Standard Library algorithms:
> >
> >>
On 03/06/20 12:35 +0200, Till Hofmann wrote:
On 6/2/20 5:24 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
### C++ includes
Several packages failed to build because they couldn't find C++
Standard Library algorithms:
freeopcua: error: 'for_each' is not a member of 'std'
I don't see a changelog entry (or a
On 6/2/20 5:24 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> ### C++ includes
>
> Several packages failed to build because they couldn't find C++
> Standard Library algorithms:
> freeopcua: error: 'for_each' is not a member of 'std'
I don't see a changelog entry (or a commit), did you only update the
On 03/06/20 09:53 -, Markus Neteler wrote:
Hi
Here another package: PDAL
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/PDAL/tree/master
It depends on boost and I don't see changes in changelog.
It wasn't found by the repoquery last week, because the package didn't
exist when I started rebuilding
Hi
Here another package: PDAL
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/PDAL/tree/master
It depends on boost and I don't see changes in changelog.
(at time it fails to compile due to this change, see
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1843094)
Best, Markus
On Wed, 3 Jun 2020 at 01:07, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
> On 02/06/20 16:24 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> >### Boost.Bind
> >
> >Several packages failed to build because the Boost.Bind placeholders
> >_1, _2, _3 etc. are no longer in the global namespace. See the message
> >in :
> >
>
On 02/06/20 16:24 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
### Boost.Bind
Several packages failed to build because the Boost.Bind placeholders
_1, _2, _3 etc. are no longer in the global namespace. See the message
in :
BOOST_PRAGMA_MESSAGE(
"The practice of declaring the Bind placeholders (_1, _2, ...)
On 02/06/20 22:39 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 02/06/20 16:24 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 28/05/20 09:44 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
- obsolete the separate boost-nowide package, as Boost 1.73.0 includes
the Boost.Nowide library now
jhogarth, please confirm you're aware of the
On 02/06/20 16:24 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 28/05/20 09:44 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
I'm starting the rebuilds for Boost 1.73.0 and packages that depend on
it, using the f33-boost side tag.
If you see "Rebuilt for Boost 1.73.0" in the changelog for one of your
packages, please do
On 02/06/20 20:00 +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 02. 06. 20 19:51, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 02. 06. 20 17:24, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
### Boost.Endian
Several packages fail because they were using an implementation detail
of Boost, the header. That no longer exists,
but nobody should have been
On Tuesday, 2 June 2020 16.40.28 WEST Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> Yes, it used the old version:
>
> DEBUG util.py:602: boost-develx86_64
> 1.69.0-22.fc33 build 9.9 M
>
> But I don't think it depends on the shared libraries so it's not going
> to have
On 02. 06. 20 19:51, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 02. 06. 20 17:24, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
### Boost.Endian
Several packages fail because they were using an implementation detail
of Boost, the header. That no longer exists,
but nobody should have been using it anyway :-P The Boost.Endian
library
On 02. 06. 20 17:24, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
### Boost.Endian
Several packages fail because they were using an implementation detail
of Boost, the header. That no longer exists,
but nobody should have been using it anyway :-P The Boost.Endian
library exists now, and provides which
should work
On Tue, Jun 02, 2020 at 05:32:46PM +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 02/06/20 17:58 +0200, Iñaki Ucar wrote:
> > On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 at 17:37, Jonathan Wakely
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > All packages from the f33-boost side tag have now been signed and
> > > should be in rawhide
> >
> > But not in
On 02/06/20 17:58 +0200, Iñaki Ucar wrote:
On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 at 17:37, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
All packages from the f33-boost side tag have now been signed and
should be in rawhide
But not in Bodhi. Does this require manual intervention?
No.
Does it need to be in bodhi now? It's in the
On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 at 17:37, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
> All packages from the f33-boost side tag have now been signed and
> should be in rawhide
But not in Bodhi. Does this require manual intervention?
--
Iñaki Úcar
___
devel mailing list --
On 02/06/20 16:24 +0100, José AbÃlio Matos wrote:
On Tuesday, 2 June 2020 15.57.14 WEST Jonathan Wakely wrote:
The side tag is merging right now, you just have to wait for 100+
packages to be signed, and they'll be in rawhide.
Oops, I submitted now a new lyx for rawhide. If for some reason
On 02/06/20 11:01 -0400, Kaleb Keithley wrote:
On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 10:58 AM Jonathan Wakely
wrote:
>Up to now it hasn't.
>
>I've been waiting to get boost > 1.71 so that it can be built with the
>system boost instead of its bundled copy.
>
>If the side tag build is going to be going on
On Tuesday, 2 June 2020 15.57.14 WEST Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> The side tag is merging right now, you just have to wait for 100+
> packages to be signed, and they'll be in rawhide.
Oops, I submitted now a new lyx for rawhide. If for some reason it
picks the old boost I will rebuild it with 1.73.
On 28/05/20 09:44 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
I'm starting the rebuilds for Boost 1.73.0 and packages that depend on
it, using the f33-boost side tag.
If you see "Rebuilt for Boost 1.73.0" in the changelog for one of your
packages, please do not make another update. Instead co-ordinate with
On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 10:58 AM Jonathan Wakely
wrote:
>
> >Up to now it hasn't.
> >
> >I've been waiting to get boost > 1.71 so that it can be built with the
> >system boost instead of its bundled copy.
> >
> >If the side tag build is going to be going on for a while then I'm going
> to
>
On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 10:48 AM Tomasz Torcz wrote:
> > Hmm, I do see this in ceph.spec:
> >
> > BuildRequires:boost-devel
> > BuildRequires:boost-random
> >
> > But the repoquery doesn't say it needs them.
>
> Thats interesting, as boost is in RPM requires.
> For example
On 02/06/20 10:44 -0400, Kaleb Keithley wrote:
On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 10:25 AM Jonathan Wakely
wrote:
...
ceph was not in my list, because it isn't returned by the first query
shown at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/F33Boost173#Dependencies
Does it actually depend on any
On Tue, Jun 02, 2020 at 03:24:24PM +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 02/06/20 07:54 -0400, Kaleb Keithley wrote:
> > Is the rebuild in the side tag something that's still in progress?
> >
> > I sent Jonathan an email asking, but didn't get a reply.
>
> Sorry, I didn't see the mail until today.
On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 10:25 AM Jonathan Wakely
wrote:
> ...
> ceph was not in my list, because it isn't returned by the first query
> shown at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/F33Boost173#Dependencies
>
> Does it actually depend on any libboost_*.so libraries, or just use
> the
On 02/06/20 07:54 -0400, Kaleb Keithley wrote:
Is the rebuild in the side tag something that's still in progress?
I sent Jonathan an email asking, but didn't get a reply.
Sorry, I didn't see the mail until today.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/F33Boost173#Scope links to the
ticket
Is the rebuild in the side tag something that's still in progress?
I sent Jonathan an email asking, but didn't get a reply.
I've built a new release of ceph (ceph-15.2.3) in the f33-boost side tag
but if this is something that's on hold I'll need to build it for f33.
Thanks
On Thu, May 28,
On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 4:46 AM Jonathan Wakely
wrote:
> I'm starting the rebuilds for Boost 1.73.0 and packages that depend on
> it, using the f33-boost side tag.
>
>
Is this still in progress? I don't see that ceph-15.2.2 has been rebuilt
nor is it being rebuilt now. Should I build the new
On 28/05/20 09:44 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
I'm starting the rebuilds for Boost 1.73.0 and packages that depend on
it, using the f33-boost side tag.
If you see "Rebuilt for Boost 1.73.0" in the changelog for one of your
packages, please do not make another update. Instead co-ordinate with
On 28/05/20 14:21 +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote:
On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 2:16 PM Jonathan Wakely
wrote:
I've literally just started. The new boost hasn't even finished yet:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=45094034
I wonder if this build is actually broken and if it will
On 28. 05. 20 14:21, Fabio Valentini wrote:
On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 2:16 PM Jonathan Wakely
wrote:
I've literally just started. The new boost hasn't even finished yet:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=45094034
I wonder if this build is actually broken and if it will ever
On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 2:16 PM Jonathan Wakely
wrote:
> I've literally just started. The new boost hasn't even finished yet:
> https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=45094034
I wonder if this build is actually broken and if it will ever finish:
OK
I just write it because you request report about "I don't see changes in
changelog".
чт, 28 мая 2020 г., 15:16 Jonathan Wakely :
> On 28/05/20 14:47 +0300, Vascom wrote:
> >Hi.
> >
> >pulseeffects package depends on boost and I don't see changes in
> changelog.
>
> I've literally just
On 28/05/20 14:47 +0300, Vascom wrote:
Hi.
pulseeffects package depends on boost and I don't see changes in changelog.
I've literally just started. The new boost hasn't even finished yet:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=45094034
Do you need to update pulseeffects? If not,
Hi.
pulseeffects package depends on boost and I don't see changes in changelog.
чт, 28 мая 2020 г., 11:45 Jonathan Wakely :
> I'm starting the rebuilds for Boost 1.73.0 and packages that depend on
> it, using the f33-boost side tag.
>
> If you see "Rebuilt for Boost 1.73.0" in the changelog for
52 matches
Mail list logo
