On 25-4-2019 11:56, Willem Jan Withagen wrote:
On 24-4-2019 20:30, Patrick McLean wrote:
On Wed, 24 Apr 2019 09:35:57 -0400
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:
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 won't break things in the meantime if we're only testing
builds against 1.67. What do you all think?
This branch builds for me as well, I haven't done any functional
testing.
Perhaps there could be an option to use either until a full
switch to 1.70 (or later) is required (I am not sure what kind of cmake
magic it would take to allow either, but I could take a stab at it if
it's desired).
I've asked one of the FreeBSD ports maintainers on the plans for boost.
I'd like to make 2 comments:
1) The cmake foo is usually the more annoying work, since cmake and
boots do not really run in sync.
2) it would be sort of silly not to already prepare for boost going to
1.7 and on, if somebody has done the work.
Question will be how to do the jenkins/QA/teutology testing for
this, otherwise the fault will only show when testing gets to 1.7
I checked with the guys doing boost porting, and 1.70 is on the virge of
arriving in the stable ports tree. Meaning that I'll be needing the same
fixes.... to keep head building.
--WjW
