kicad-developers team mailing list archive

[Nick Østergaard <oe.nick@xxxxxxxxx>]

2016-11-12 20:15 GMT+01:00 Michael Steinberg <michsteinb@xxxxxxxxx>:
> Hi all,
>
>>> 1. Boost 1.61 compatibility and bugfix?
>>> 2. Release version string.
>>>
>>> Should the release should include the boost 1.61 fix. It was discussed
>>> in:
>>> [Kicad-developers] About Bug 1604841: Pcbnew crash at moving via, and
>>> boost::context fixes to make it compatible with boost 1.61
>>>
>>> And there is a patch in [1], although it does not explicitly state
>>> where it is from, but it looks similar to [2] and [3]. With out the
>>> patch in [1] I can not build it against boost 1.62 on archlinux.
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> [1]https://git.archlinux.org/svntogit/community.git/tree/trunk/boost-1.61.patch?h=packages/kicad
>>>
>>> [2]https://git.launchpad.net/kicad/commit/?id=06d4894fdbeb00727cdcc667b8899ad73d8eb1c2
>>>
>>> [3]https://git.launchpad.net/kicad/commit/?id=78bc3c65de6c03d19be9902327d08cd4d87c229c
>
> Regarding patches 1-3:
>
> I'm still here reading mostly and supporting those patches, just that I've
> been busy finding a job and a project is going on too. So in short, these
> three patches, although commited individually actually belong together in
> the retrospective. Nothing has changed with regard to the fact that the
> public interface of boost::context requires c++11 compilation beginning with
> boost version 1.61, that's why it was decided to not apply them to stable
> back then.
>
> The now-encapsulated-and-moved-to-detail parts of boost::context that Kicad
> uses for boost versions < 1.61 are actually still there, so it might be
> possible to use those, but it might also be the case that it's not possible
> to hide the c++11 header parts from the compiler when using them. Not even
> considering I think it would *really* not be a wise decision to rely on
> implementation details, especially looking into the future.
>
> I think it would be best to just tell people they need to use a recent
> compiler (and the according standard switch) if they also want to use a
> recent boost and apply these patches to stable, iff there is a growing
> demand/complain-rate. But I will also try to help/assist/... finding a
> different solution, if it is in demand.
>
> Cheers!
> Michael
>

Thank you, Micahel, for the explanation. Now I do remember that we
probably did not apply them to stable becasue of the C++11 not being a
requirement for 4.0 series.

I think it is perfectly ok keep it that way and only let packagers who
do have a newer system to apply those patches locally if that is what
we want to do.  But in that case I guess we should add that to the
guidelines to the packagers.

Nick