Moving to bost 1.3?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
5 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Moving to bost 1.3?

frank.schoenheit
Hi,

Currently, OOo uses boost 1.34.1 for platforms with a GCC >=4, and boost
1.30.2 + a separated spirit 1.6.1 for all other platforms (see
boost/download in the source tree).

For various reasons, we'd like to clean up this mess, and move to a
single version (containing spirit).

This could be boost 1.34.1, but given that this version is pretty old
already, we'd prefer a recent version - boost 1.39.0, that is.

The work for this is ongoing in CWS boost134. In this CWS, a move to
1.39 has been done, and it compiles on the standard build platforms
provided by Sun HH: Solaris Intel/Sparc, Linux 32/64, Mac OS X, Windows.

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
the CWS a try.

If boost 1.39 proves to be too problematic, an option would be to indeed
stay with 1.34 (on all platforms). This would require reverting a few
changes in the CWS, but on the "standard" platforms mentioned above, an
older version of the CWS, using 1.34, also compiled fine.

Any feedback is appreciated.


As an additional note, it has been suggested to not commit the
boost*.tar.gz to boost/download, but make it a pre-requisite which needs
to be downloaded before building. This would (for 1.39) save >50M in the
repository for every version ever committed there.
Opinions on this plan are also welcome.

Ciao
Frank

--
- Frank Schönheit, Software Engineer         [hidden email] -
- Sun Microsystems                      http://www.sun.com/staroffice -
- OpenOffice.org Base                       http://dba.openoffice.org -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [tools-dev] Moving to bost 1.3?

Rene Engelhard-7
[ dropping tinderbox@tools, as they don't use system-boost anyway ]

Hi,

On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 10:56:34PM +0200, Frank Schönheit - Sun Microsystems Germany wrote:
> 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
> the CWS a try.

Did you need code changes for boost 1.39 to work at either build or
runtime?

[ Seems so, do you now strictly need 1.39? Then we probably should
adapt the system-boost check in configure; or we #ifdef it as necessary ]

Grüße/Regards,

Rene

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re: [tools-dev] Moving to bost 1.3?

frank.schoenheit
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
>> the CWS a try.
>
> Did you need code changes for boost 1.39 to work at either build or
> runtime?

At compile time - yes.

At runtime - no. However, I didn't manage, yet, to do extensive runtime
checks of all affected areas. That's ongoing work.

> [ 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
checks with this version.

> Then we probably should adapt the system-boost check in configure; or
> we #ifdef it as necessary ]

Ah, okay, will put this onto my TODO list (unless you volunteer, of
course :) ).

Thanks & Ciao
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [tools-tinderbox] Moving to bost 1.3?

Thorsten Behrens-3
In reply to this post by frank.schoenheit
[Cc to tinderbox removed]

Frank Schönheit - Sun Microsystems Germany wrote:
> As an additional note, it has been suggested to not commit the
> boost*.tar.gz to boost/download, but make it a pre-requisite which needs
> to be downloaded before building. This would (for 1.39) save >50M in the
> repository for every version ever committed there.
> Opinions on this plan are also welcome.
>
Hi Frank,

hm - in the light of heavy-weight commits like the .sdf one, ain't
this just a micro-optimisation? Unless such stuff gets downloaded
automagically, it's a big nuisance in the already-full-of-nuisances
ooo build experience.

Or invent a nice solution that does auto-downloads, and switch a few
other huge external libs to that (like icu). ;)

Just my 2c,

-- Thorsten

signature.asc (196 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [dev] Re: [tools-tinderbox] Moving to bost 1.3?

Jens-Heiner Rechtien
Hi Thorsten,

Thorsten Behrens wrote:

> [Cc to tinderbox removed]
>
> Frank Schönheit - Sun Microsystems Germany wrote:
>> As an additional note, it has been suggested to not commit the
>> boost*.tar.gz to boost/download, but make it a pre-requisite which needs
>> to be downloaded before building. This would (for 1.39) save >50M in the
>> repository for every version ever committed there.
>> Opinions on this plan are also welcome.
>>
> Hi Frank,
>
> hm - in the light of heavy-weight commits like the .sdf one, ain't
> this just a micro-optimisation? Unless such stuff gets downloaded
> automagically, it's a big nuisance in the already-full-of-nuisances
> ooo build experience.
>
> Or invent a nice solution that does auto-downloads, and switch a few
> other huge external libs to that (like icu). ;)

Actually, I would love that.

Heiner


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]