Bug 825826

Summary: Boost 1.50 in Fedora 18
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Petr Machata <pmachata>
Component: boostAssignee: Petr Machata <pmachata>
Status: CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: unspecified    
Version: rawhideCC: denis.arnaud_fedora, mnewsome, pertusus, pmachata, redhat-bugzilla
Target Milestone: ---Keywords: FutureFeature
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Enhancement
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: 754865 Environment:
Last Closed: 2013-03-08 13:17:31 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Bug Depends On: 847534    
Bug Blocks:    

Description Petr Machata 2012-05-28 15:08:39 UTC
Boost 1.50 is nearing release, and we will want to update the corresponding packages in Fedora.  Final Boost 1.50 should be out at the end of July.  Final Boost 1.51 at the beginning of November.  Fedora 18 alpha change deadline is currently scheduled to August 14.  Boost 1.51 is therefore hopelessly late for us.  We should have enough time to rebase to 1.50 though, the overlap is about two weeks.

I'll proceed with filing a feature page.

Comment 1 Petr Machata 2012-05-28 16:34:51 UTC

Comment 2 Petr Machata 2012-06-25 16:24:26 UTC
Regarding the upstream that this will use, there are, in theory, three possibilities: canonical boost, pocb, or ryppl.  In the past several releases, we were using pocb.  But that has been largely abandoned and required considerable effort on maintainers' side.  Ryppl is what seems to be the way of the future.  I'm currently testing Ryppl to see whether it provides the build flexibility that we need.  So far I've found that to build shared objects we need to issue cmake thus:


That builds without sonames.  To fill in these, we need to patch some cmake files like this:

diff -up modules/boost/system/CMakeLists.txt\~ modules/boost/system/CMakeLists.txt
--- modules/boost/system/CMakeLists.txt	2012-06-25 18:21:00.770952956 +0200
+++ modules/boost/system/CMakeLists.txt	2012-06-25 18:21:14.565050692 +0200
@@ -16,6 +16,7 @@ add_library(boost_system
+set_target_properties(boost_system PROPERTIES SOVERSION "1.50.0")
   set_target_properties(boost_system PROPERTIES

We will also want to build twice, once for DSO's and once for static archd

Comment 3 Petr Machata 2012-06-25 16:24:53 UTC
... and once for static archives.

Comment 4 Petr Machata 2012-06-25 17:53:17 UTC
I'm thinking that if eu

Comment 5 Petr Machata 2012-06-25 17:55:56 UTC
I'm thinking that if the Ryppl way is viable, we might even provide each boost library in a separate boost-devel subpackage.  The dependencies are clearly stated in the CMakeList's, and it should be possible to generate the corresponding .spec artifacts from that.

Comment 6 Petr Machata 2012-06-25 23:20:24 UTC
Python3 builds are straightforward: -DPython_ADDITIONAL_VERSIONS=3.2mu
There doesn't seek

Comment 7 Petr Machata 2012-06-25 23:21:27 UTC
There doesn't seem to be a mechanism for configuring just a subset of targets, but one can launch build of a subset by doing e.g.
  make VERBOSE=1 boost_graph_parallel

Comment 8 Petr Machata 2012-06-26 15:27:32 UTC
There doesn't seem to be a way to install a boost distribution from ryppl toolset.  We could install manually, but that's probably bending over backwards too much.  I talked to the developers on #ryppl, and they don't feel like ryppl is mature enough for use in Fedora either.

POCB is nowadays essentially maintained by Denis alone, with occasional patch from me, and there's no clear intent to become more official.

Given the above, I feel like we should switch back to building boost with jam.

Comment 9 Petr Machata 2012-07-26 11:44:36 UTC
Initial packaging of boost 1.50 has just been committed to master.  Scratch build is spinning here:

After fixing bugs in the build above, I will do an official build in a separate boost tag (as described in https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/5230 ).  In any case, I think now is the time to write to fedora devel, and update everyone on how to rebuild for new boost, so I'll do it shortly.

Comment 10 Petr Machata 2012-07-26 14:57:38 UTC
I've just built boost 1.50:
Note the build was made into the tag "f18-boost".

Comment 11 Robert Scheck 2012-08-12 21:28:50 UTC
Missing filesystem v2 breaks Zarafa building.

Comment 12 Petr Machata 2013-03-08 13:17:31 UTC
Robert, if this is still a problem, then please open a separate bug report and I will look into it.  The purpose of this bug was to track Fedora 18 feature, which has now long been implemented.