On 11/27/2017 11:03 AM, Casey Bodley wrote:
There are a couple of interesting changes in the upcoming boost 1.66
release, based on the work-in-progress release notes:
http://www.boost.org/users/history/in_progress.html
- the Beast library was accepted into boost earlier this year, and
1.66 will be its first release. We're currently including it in a
submodule, so we'll need to come up with a strategy to transition.
- the Asio library is getting "interface changes to reflect the
Networking TS" (which is awesome!) but we might see some compilation
failures in radosgw as a result.
Now that we have the tooling to build specific boost versions, how do
people feel about forcing the update to 1.66 once we've got it tested?
This could avoid the extra work needed to a) maintain the beast
submodule alongside boost's, and b) work around any hypothetical api
breakage in asio. Once 1.66 is out, we'll have a better idea how much
work that actually requires, but I wanted to float the idea ahead of
time.
Casey
Boost 1.66 was released yesterday! The boost::beast changes were minimal
(only one function name changed), but the changes to boost::asio were
extensive and necessitated major changes to my PR for librados bindings
at https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/19054. So I'm still proposing that
we pin our boost dependency at 1.66 to avoid #ifdefs and build hackery
to continue supporting earlier versions. That PR includes the cmake
changes to do this, though I'm happy to pull those into a separate PR if
necessary.
Casey
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
