Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

update Boost to 1.71.0 #30

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Oct 16, 2019
Merged

update Boost to 1.71.0 #30

merged 1 commit into from
Oct 16, 2019

Conversation

dan-42
Copy link

@dan-42 dan-42 commented Oct 4, 2019

Copy link
Member

@rbsheth rbsheth left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Can you please look into why AppVeyor is failing? The configuration should be very similar to the 1.70.0 release.

cmake/projects/Boost/hunter.cmake Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@dan-42
Copy link
Author

dan-42 commented Oct 5, 2019

Concerning the failed builds on AppVeyor,
Boost 1.70.0-p0 did not run any tests, or at least any I could find.
It was added directly by @ruslo see https://github.com/ruslo/hunter/commits/master/cmake/projects/Boost/hunter.cmake

How ever the PR for 1.69.0-p1 by @Bjoe did already disable the 2 configs that failed here.
ruslo#1911
https://ci.appveyor.com/project/Bjoe/hunter/builds/25778639

@bkotzz
Copy link
Member

bkotzz commented Oct 5, 2019

From here https://github.com/cpp-pm/hunter-testing/blob/pkg.boost/appveyor.yml, I think you’re right - it looks like the three windows toolchains failing is expected. But also looking at that build matrix (which came from ingenue/hunter), it looks like they normally test a bunch of the sub packages in CI as well. Should we be doing that (and same for Travis)?

@dan-42
Copy link
Author

dan-42 commented Oct 7, 2019

Yes, for now I think it makes sens to stick to the same way.
I'll update the PR soon this week.

Still if I find the time, I'll try looking into it why they break.

@xsacha
Copy link

xsacha commented Oct 10, 2019

'C:/Program' is not recognized as an internal or external command,
Would appear something isn't quoting the path.

If nmake/ninja/msys didn't work before, I say push this now and fix later. You can always make a revision to the scheme which fixes a bug such as this in a separate commit. It would likely fix all previous versions too.

@bkotzz
Copy link
Member

bkotzz commented Oct 10, 2019

I’m okay with not fixing the three windows toolchains as they were failing before. I’m merely suggesting that for boost specifically, we should test all the sub components as well, as that is what was previously done

@dan-42
Copy link
Author

dan-42 commented Oct 16, 2019

Sry got caught up in other stuff.

I Updated the requested version string from 1.71.0 to 1.71.0-p0
I used the toolchains pointed out by @bkotzz

builds running:

@dan-42
Copy link
Author

dan-42 commented Oct 16, 2019

So all test pass with all sub components.
I think this can be merged, as it provides the latest version of boost and does not break any existing tool-chain.

But still would be nice if the broken jobs are fixed in the future.
I plan to look into it. But I cannot promise when i will find the time :-)

What I don't understand is why the appveyor build for this PR breaks.
It also points to @bkotzz https://ci.appveyor.com/project/bkotzz/hunter-kif9a/builds/28140943
and not to my instance https://ci.appveyor.com/project/dan-42/hunter/builds/28147164

Maybe because the appveyor project was not setup when I created this PR?
Or I did something else wrong.

@bkotzz
Copy link
Member

bkotzz commented Oct 16, 2019

Don’t worry about the builds that we’re already broken. And the appveyor on this repo isn’t set up correctly yet - it’s there for some work I’m doing to improve CI, but it’s not ready yet.

@bkotzz bkotzz merged commit f4e1203 into cpp-pm:master Oct 16, 2019
@dan-42 dan-42 deleted the pr.boost-1.71.0 branch October 23, 2019 04:11
dan-42 added a commit to dan-42/hunter that referenced this pull request Oct 23, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants