On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 9:59 PM Casey Bodley <cbodley@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On 4/20/19 6:25 AM, Willem Jan Withagen wrote: > > On 19-4-2019 03:46, Patrick McLean wrote: > >> On Wed, 17 Apr 2019 09:50:00 -0400 > >> Casey Bodley <cbodley@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> That's good to know, thanks for testing! This one is documented as a > >>> breaking change in > >>> https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_70_0/doc/html/boost_asio/history.html: > >>> > >>> > Note: One potential source of breakage in existing user code is > >>> > when > >>> reusing an I/O object's |io_context| for constructing another I/O > >>> object, as in... > >>> > >>> When we fix this, we'll also want to update cmake to require boost > >>> 1.70 so that we don't need a bunch of #ifdefs to support previous > >>> versions. > >> > >> The local patch I am using to test does this already. > > > > Thusfar I'm able to compile ceph onf FreeBSD with boost 1.69. > > No changes required. > > > > --WjW > > > > I have a branch building against 1.70 in > https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/27730. I ended up adding '#if > BOOST_VERSION < 107000' in a couple places, so we could merge the rgw > bits without updating the minimum required version to 1.70. I don't see > any immediate benefit to switching now; I just can't guarantee that rgw yeah, i agree that Ceph should not require boost >= 1.70 now. as ubuntu disco has 1.67, fedora 30 has 1.69 , debian sid (at time of writing) has 1.67, openSUSE Leap has 1.69. > won't break things in the meantime if we're only testing builds against > 1.67. What do you all think? > -- Regards Kefu Chai
