headers
Isidor Zeuner | 24 Apr 2010 03:26
Picon
Favicon

Boost-CMake with recent changes from upstream

Hello fellow Boosters and CMakers,

as I got tired of deciding between using recent Boost code and
enjoying CMake's convenience, I decided to give it a try and
iteratively applied all the upstream patches since the point where
Boost-CMake was current on the Boost-CMake source. The result can be
acquired from [1].

As it was done in an automated fashion for the greatest part, it
obviously has its rough edges (most importantly, the new libraries are
not built yet). Still, for a number of reasons I found it worth
sharing:

1. I think it's much more satisfying to work on improving
Boost-CMake's shape if it doesn't have to be done on old code
(for this reason, I also think it's a pity that the project got
forked off from upstream in the first place).

2. People using Boost-CMake might have use for the improvements from
upstream.

3. I might not be the only one who finds it useful to be able to dive
into the code's patch history, rather than getting a full release
merged in from time to time.

4. It seems like Boost-CMake is already old enough for upstream
needing to hide us: [2]. So it makes sense to get used to the idea of
adapting Boost-CMake to the new code.

Anyway, happy pulling/flaming/whatever...
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Denis Arnaud | 27 Apr 2010 09:37

Re: Boost-CMake with recent changes from upstream

Thanks a lot, that's an excellent initiative! I do hope that it will re-activate Boost-CMaker enthusiasm :)

Best Regards

Denis

2010/4/24 Isidor Zeuner <boost-Ffyhb0Qs+N4b1SvskN2V4Q@public.gmane.org>
[...] I decided to give it a try and iteratively applied all the upstream patches since the point where Boost-CMake was current on the Boost-CMake source.

_______________________________________________
Boost-cmake mailing list
Boost-cmake@...
http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-cmake
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Biddiscombe, John A. | 27 Apr 2010 11:06
Picon
Favicon

Re: Boost-CMake with recent changes from upstream

> Thanks a lot, that's an excellent initiative! I do hope that it will re-
> activate Boost-CMaker enthusiasm :)

Seconded. If I find fixes, I will try to send patches.

JB
-- 
John Biddiscombe,                            email:biddisco  <at>  cscs.ch
http://www.cscs.ch/

CSCS, Swiss National Supercomputing Centre  | Tel:  +41 (91) 610.82.07
Via Cantonale, 6928 Manno, Switzerland      | Fax:  +41 (91) 610.82.82



_______________________________________________
Boost-cmake mailing list
Boost-cmake <at> lists.boost.org
http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-cmake
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Isidor Zeuner | 28 Apr 2010 12:07
Picon
Favicon

Re: Boost-CMake with recent changes from upstream

> 
> Seconded. If I find fixes, I will try to send patches.
> 

Great! Patches and other feedback are always welcome.

Best regards,

Isidor
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Marcus D. Hanwell | 28 Apr 2010 16:48
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: Boost-CMake with recent changes from upstream

On Wednesday 28 April 2010 06:07:56 Isidor Zeuner wrote:
> > Seconded. If I find fixes, I will try to send patches.
> 
> Great! Patches and other feedback are always welcome.
> 
I am also using the Boost CMake build system in a project, and have thus far 
been using 1.41.0, but welcome the chance to use an updated version. I will 
certainly contribute patches/feedback when I can. Thanks for doing this, my 
initial test using GCC 4.5 on 64 bit Linux built without any problems.

Thanks,

Marcus
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Michael Jackson | 3 May 2010 15:36
Favicon

Re: Boost-CMake with recent changes from upstream

On 4/28/10 10:48 AM, in article
201004281048.07303.marcus.hanwell@..., "Marcus D.
Hanwell" wrote:

> On Wednesday 28 April 2010 06:07:56 Isidor Zeuner wrote:
>>> Seconded. If I find fixes, I will try to send patches.
>> 
>> Great! Patches and other feedback are always welcome.
>> 
> I am also using the Boost CMake build system in a project, and have thus far
> been using 1.41.0, but welcome the chance to use an updated version. I will
> certainly contribute patches/feedback when I can. Thanks for doing this, my
> initial test using GCC 4.5 on 64 bit Linux built without any problems.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Marcus
I would say that Troy may be really busy and unable to get everything
updated. If someone from the community wants to put the time into getting
all the upstream patches put into a new Boost-CMake release then that would
be great. Cloning from Gitorious is quite easy. Just point to another repo
to get the newer boost. I don't think the Boost-CMake was ever "Officially"
supported by the Boost devs but more "put up with".

Mike Jackson.
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Michael Jackson | 17 Aug 2010 17:23
Favicon

Re: Boost-CMake with recent changes from upstream

So I saw the announcement that Boost 1.44.0 had been released. I took a look
around www.gitorious.com/boost and noticed that the following:

 http://gitorious.org/~denisarnaud/boost/denisarnauds-zeuners-boost-cmake/co
mmits/1.44.0-denis

Is a clone that is keeping up with the latest releases and HEAD from
Boost-SVN.

There are some small issues still with using the boost-cmake installation
with it's default settings and CMake's own "FindBoost.cmake" file.
Work-arounds are easy (Matter of setting some CMake variables correctly) and
I have asked on the CMake mailing list to see if some additions to the
FindBoost.cmake file can be added to the next release of CMake in order to
make a default build of boost-cmake work better with CMake itself.

Thanks Denis for keeping up with the upstream builds of Boost-svn.

Mike Jackson

PS: Troy, if you are listening, could you please add some others as
administrators to the gitorious/boost project so we can keep the
distributions in a single place? Thanks.

On 5/3/10 9:36 AM, in article C80449A5.ECFC%mike.jackson@...,
"Michael Jackson" wrote:

> On 4/28/10 10:48 AM, in article
> 201004281048.07303.marcus.hanwell@...,
> "Marcus D. Hanwell" wrote:
> 
>> On Wednesday 28 April 2010 06:07:56 Isidor Zeuner wrote:
>>>> Seconded. If I find fixes, I will try to send patches.
>>> 
>>> Great! Patches and other feedback are always welcome.
>>> 
>> I am also using the Boost CMake build system in a project, and have thus far
>> been using 1.41.0, but welcome the chance to use an updated version. I will
>> certainly contribute patches/feedback when I can. Thanks for doing this, my
>> initial test using GCC 4.5 on 64 bit Linux built without any problems.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> Marcus
> I would say that Troy may be really busy and unable to get everything
> updated. If someone from the community wants to put the time into getting
> all the upstream patches put into a new Boost-CMake release then that would
> be great. Cloning from Gitorious is quite easy. Just point to another repo
> to get the newer boost. I don't think the Boost-CMake was ever "Officially"
> supported by the Boost devs but more "put up with".
> 
> Mike Jackson.
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Denis Arnaud | 17 Aug 2010 20:32

Re: Boost-CMake with recent changes from upstream

2010/8/17 Michael Jackson <mike.jackson-o71+U35G4LUGVr8H/5ucqw@public.gmane.org>
So I saw the announcement that Boost 1.44.0 had been released. I took a look
around www.gitorious.com/boost and noticed that the following:
http://gitorious.org/~denisarnaud/boost/denisarnauds-zeuners-boost-cmake/co
mmits/1.44.0-denis
is a clone that is keeping up with the latest releases and HEAD from
Boost-SVN.

You do have sharp eyes :)
Indeed, now, the only difference between the newly released Boost-1.44.0 version and that Gitorious-hosted Git branch is made of the "CMake framework".
 
There are some small issues still with using the boost-cmake installation
with it's default settings and CMake's own "FindBoost.cmake" file.

You are right. For instance, in Fedora, Boost own support for CMake is no longer shipped with the Boost RPM package, as it hindered some other software components to build correctly: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=597020#c7
 
Work-arounds are easy (Matter of setting some CMake variables correctly) and
I have asked on the CMake mailing list to see if some additions to the
FindBoost.cmake file can be added to the next release of CMake in order to
make a default build of boost-cmake work better with CMake itself.

Do not hesitate to send me a patch, or to request a merge (http://gitorious.org/boost/denisarnauds-zeuners-boost-cmake/merge_requests/new) after having cloned my Gitorious repository (http://gitorious.org/~denisarnaud/boost/denisarnauds-zeuners-boost-cmake).

PS: Troy, if you are listening, could you please add some others as
administrators to the gitorious/boost project so we can keep the
distributions in a single place? Thanks.

If you give me your Gitorious username, I can add you as an administrator of my Git repository. Also, if you have better ideas for the Gitorious repository organisation, names or management, do not hesitate: I would be happy to derive from any other Git repository you deem relevant.

Thanks

Regards

Denis

_______________________________________________
Boost-cmake mailing list
Boost-cmake@...
http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-cmake
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Michael Jackson | 17 Aug 2010 23:42
Favicon

Re: Boost-CMake with recent changes from upstream

On 8/17/10 2:32 PM, in article
AANLkTinXf25=FoHAgs_chbXGVQ=5x8JNGP6z4429dYm1@...,
"Denis Arnaud"
wrote:

> 2010/8/17 Michael Jackson
> <mike.jackson@...>
> 
>> So I saw the announcement that Boost 1.44.0 had been released. I took a
>> look
>> around www.gitorious.com/boost and noticed that the following:
>> http://gitorious.org/~denisarnaud/boost/denisarnauds-zeuners-boost-cmake/co
>> mmits/1.44.0-denis<http://gitorious.org/%7Edenisarnaud/boost/denisarnauds-zeu
>> ners-boost-cmake/co%0Ammits/1.44.0-denis>
>> is a clone that is keeping up with the latest releases and HEAD from
>> Boost-SVN.
>> 
> 
> You do have sharp eyes :)
> Indeed, now, the only difference between the newly released Boost-1.44.0
> version and that Gitorious-hosted Git branch is made of the "CMake
> framework".
> 
> 
>> There are some small issues still with using the boost-cmake installation
>> with it's default settings and CMake's own "FindBoost.cmake" file.
>> 
> 
> You are right. For instance, in Fedora, Boost own support for CMake is no
> longer shipped with the Boost RPM package, as it hindered some other
> software components to build correctly:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=597020#c7

Looking at the bug my first inclination is to just not have those files
installed on linux machines. I have no idea what the deeper issues are or
how to solve them. If the issues are to just have the files not installed by
default then we can fix that pretty quick and let Fedora start using the
CMake files again.
   Someone with more Linux experience should chime in here with a better
answer.

> 
> If you give me your Gitorious username, I can add you as an administrator of
> my Git repository. Also, if you have better ideas for the Gitorious
> repository organisation, names or management, do not hesitate: I would be
> happy to derive from any other Git repository you deem relevant.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Regards
> 
> Denis

I think we should name branches closely to what they are mirroring. For
instance on another project I work with (HDF5) there is a branch that
mirrors the upstream SVN repo which we call "svn-mirror". We should do this
with the releases as well. So either tag or branch git with the 1.44.0-cmake
branch to make it obvious which branch is what.

Just my thoughts. I also think we should maybe revert back to an
installation scheme that is the same as how bjam would do it. This gives up
maximum compatibility with current projects and cmake itself. We can have
options to have alternate layouts if people still want them.

Mike Jackson.
Permalink | Reply |
headers
G S | 27 Apr 2010 01:21
Picon

Re: Boost-CMake with recent changes from upstream

Sounds like you did everyone a favor.  Thanks.

Why isn't the CMake state being kept up to date in the first place?
Is it because there's an effort to make a whole competing Boost build
system?  What's the rationale for that?

Seems a bit wasteful to come up with a whole new system, when the time
could be spent improving CMake if necessary.  Why bloat Boost?
Permalink | Reply |

Gmane