Re: [Boost-cmake] Testing dependencies

On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 9:17 AM, Brad King wrote: > David Abrahams wrote: >> >> I just realized we need a feature (surprise!) >> >> When I'm working on a Boost library, I need to be able to fire off all >> the tests of libraries that depend on the one I'm changing, to make sure >> I'm not breaking a

Re: [Boost-cmake] CMakeLists.txt missing copyright and licence

On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 8:28 PM, Jeremiah Willcock wrote: > On Fri, 29 May 2009, troy d. straszheim wrote: > >> Beman Dawes wrote: >>> >>> This is causing lots of inspect failures. See >>> http://boost.cowic.de/rc/inspect-trunk.html >>> >&g

[Boost-cmake] CMakeLists.txt missing copyright and licence

This is causing lots of inspect failures. See http://boost.cowic.de/rc/inspect-trunk.html I'd like to see these cleared ASAP so I can pester developers about their real inspect problems during the bug sprint. Since some of these files are generated automatically, the generator needs fixing too

Re: [Boost-cmake] merged to trunk (mpi tests fixed)

On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 12:01 PM, troy d. straszheim wrote: > Hey, > > I went interrupt-driven for a bit and merged to trunk. Wow! Thanks! --Beman ___ Boost-cmake mailing list Boost-cmake@lists.boost.org http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boos

Re: [Boost-cmake] Path to test binaries for Boost.MPI (and Boost.graph_parallel) seems to be incorrect

On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 4:47 PM, troy d. straszheim wrote: > Nick Edmonds wrote: >> >> Hi All, >> >> I've been hacking the CMake build system to build the tests/examples for >> libs/graph_parallel and in doing so found that the path to the tests seems >> to be incorrect. > > are you on the release

Re: [Boost-cmake] Creating "Known Issues": CMake Problems with boost 1.39

On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 9:33 PM, Doug Gregor wrote: > On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 6:51 AM, Daniel James > wrote: >> I've added CMakeLists.txt to the release manager checklist so this >> should be updated by a release manager for future releases: >> >> https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/wiki/ReleasePra

[Boost-cmake] Windows Installer directory structure?

The Windows installer created a directory tree like this: Program Files Boost bin ... include boost-1_40 boost ... lib .. I'm uncomfortable with that. It is different from the directory structure

Re: [Boost-cmake] Creating "Known Issues": CMake Problems with boost 1.39

On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 9:51 AM, Daniel James wrote: > 2009/5/13 troy d. straszheim : >> Tan, Tom (Shanghai) wrote: >>> >>> I used CMake to build boost 1.39 and found at least two problems: >>> >>>  - In the cmakelist.txt file the BOOST_VERSION_MINOR is 38, instead of 39 >>> >> >> A known problem.

[Boost-cmake] Windows installer available for experimentation

See http://boost.cowic.de/rc/Boost-1.40.0-vc9.exe I've tried this installer on a Windows 7 machine and it worked without problems. Haven't actually tried to use any of the libraries. The most striking aspect of this exercise was how smooth the process is from the release manager's perspective. I

Re: [Boost-cmake] Wiki to disappear: docs in progress

On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 12:02 AM, Doug Gregor wrote: > Thanks! I committed some changes to the release branch that will, I > think, work around this problem. It looks like "foreach" is a special > variable in NSIS, and we have a library named "foreach", which appears > to have caused the failure.

Re: [Boost-cmake] Wiki to disappear: docs in progress

On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 5:11 PM, Brad King wrote: > Beman Dawes wrote: >> >> On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 4:38 PM, Doug Gregor >> wrote: >> >>> Beman, did you enable testing? >> >> No. I figured that was a bit much for now. >> >>>

Re: [Boost-cmake] Wiki to disappear: docs in progress

On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 4:38 PM, Doug Gregor wrote: > Beman, did you enable testing? No. I figured that was a bit much for now. > Even without all of the tests, Boost still has a huge number of targets in it. Yes, although I've been impressed with how fast everything except the VS IDE load has

Re: [Boost-cmake] Wiki to disappear: docs in progress

On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 4:39 PM, Bill Hoffman wrote: > Beman Dawes wrote: > >> Please check >> C:/boost/release-cmake-build/_CPack_Packages/win32/NSIS/NSISOutput.log >> for errors >> CPack Error: Problem compressing the directory >> CPack Error: Error whe

Re: [Boost-cmake] Wiki to disappear: docs in progress

On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 4:09 PM, Doug Gregor wrote: > On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 1:02 PM, Beman Dawes wrote: > I suspect it's just: > >  nmake modularize > > then > >  nmake package Yeah, that's what I did. Died on bcp again, so I removed the bcp checkmark,

Re: [Boost-cmake] CDash dashboard now available

On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 3:48 PM, Doug Gregor wrote: > On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 12:10 PM, Beman Dawes wrote: >> On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 2:02 PM, Doug Gregor wrote: >> ... We might be able to prod someone into building x86 >>> Windows binaries. Any takers? >> >>

Re: [Boost-cmake] Wiki to disappear: docs in progress

On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 9:16 AM, troy d. straszheim wrote: > I've been working hard on getting some proper docs together. Whats done is > here: > > http://www.resophonic.com/boost_cmake/index.html > > Not quite everything is off the wiki just yet. Bug reports welcome, help > is more welcome.

Re: [Boost-cmake] CDash dashboard now available

On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 2:02 PM, Doug Gregor wrote: ... We might be able to prod someone into building x86 > Windows binaries. Any takers? I'm already playing with trying to create a VC++ installer for Windows. Just getting my feet wet, but I'll let this list know as I make progress and/or have q

Re: [Boost-cmake] CDash dashboard now available

On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 3:44 PM, Bill Hoffman wrote: > Philip Lowman wrote: >> >> The tests look like they're already grouped by a label that relates back >> to the boost library they derive from so implementing this would only be a >> matter of a different viewer.  I've filed a feature request for

Re: [Boost-cmake] Parallel Builds on Windows

On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 5:13 AM, Ingo Albrecht wrote: > ... Since VS2005, there is another tool called vcbuild > that does not only emit messages on its stdout but can also dump them > into a good old text file. As I already noted earlier, it can also prefix > lines with specific severity levels w

Re: [Boost-cmake] Parallel Builds on Windows

On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 6:58 AM, David Abrahams wrote: > But the real problem here is that anyone wanting to contribute a testing > server will have a tough time making good use of his hardware, because > --- unless I'm mistaken --- you can't automate the VS-based builds. > > ...or am I missing so

Re: [Boost-cmake] [boost] RE Boost 1.38.0 beta 2 available

On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 11:19 AM, troy d. straszheim wrote: > (pulled over from main boost list) > > Beman Dawes wrote: >> >> Yes. There will be a lot more discussion and review before V3 ships. I >> keep hoping someone will volunteer to fix Cygwin, too. >&g

Re: [Boost-cmake] README.txt and Welcome.txt?

On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 6:35 PM, Daniel James wrote: > 2009/1/27 troy d. straszheim : >> I tweaked things when I brought cmake over so that it wouldn't insist on >> having a README.txt there, but of course it'd be good to have something >> better than the generic one that comes packaged with cmake

Re: [Boost-cmake] README.txt and Welcome.txt?

On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 3:34 PM, Daniel James wrote: > Beman, would it be possible for you to install lynx and add the > appropriate command to your release scripts? I installed Cygwin's lynx and it ran fine on first try, using the command line you provided. No problem adding this to the daily

Re: [Boost-cmake] cmake not on release branch

On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 11:45 AM, troy d. straszheim wrote: > > I'm wondering what the story is with this... is it OK to merge the > cmakelists and whatnot over there, so that releases end up being > cmake-buildable? Yes, please do. Thanks, --Beman

Re: [Boost-cmake] Analysis of the current CMake system

On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 6:16 PM, Doug Gregor wrote: > On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 3:02 PM, Beman Dawes wrote: >> On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 11:52 AM, Brad King wrote: >>>.. >>> One of the goals of CMake is to let developers use their favorite >>> native tools. >

Re: [Boost-cmake] Analysis of the current CMake system

On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 9:30 AM, David Abrahams wrote: > > on Wed Jan 14 2009, "troy d. straszheim" wrote: > >> Hi Brad, >> >> There is a lot to discuss here. I'll go back later and make specific >> comments. It'd >> be great to talk in person at boostcon, (boostcon rocks, by the way.) >> >> I

Re: [Boost-cmake] Analysis of the current CMake system

On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 11:52 AM, Brad King wrote: >.. > One of the goals of CMake is to let developers use their favorite > native tools. Horrors! As a boost developer, the last thing in the world I want is to have to know anything about a platform's native tools. I just want to be able to enter

Re: [Boost-cmake] Boost CMake at BoostCon?

On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 10:50 AM, Bill Hoffman wrote: > Would it be good if someone from Kitware came? Yes, particularly if we set time aside to work on outstanding issues. Such as reporting of test results. Would a workshop on test result reporting be of interest to readers of this list? Last

Re: [Boost-cmake] Boost CMake at BoostCon?

On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 11:45 AM, troy d. straszheim wrote: > Beman Dawes wrote: >> >> On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 11:27 PM, David Abrahams wrote: >>> >>> on Fri Jan 09 2009, "Beman Dawes" wrote: >>> >>>> Is anyone planning to subm

Re: [Boost-cmake] Boost CMake at BoostCon?

On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 11:27 PM, David Abrahams wrote: > > on Fri Jan 09 2009, "Beman Dawes" wrote: > >> Is anyone planning to submit a BoostCon proposal for a talk, tutorial, >> or workshop on Boost CMake? >> >> Seems like this would be a natural t

[Boost-cmake] Boost CMake at BoostCon?

Is anyone planning to submit a BoostCon proposal for a talk, tutorial, or workshop on Boost CMake? Seems like this would be a natural to build momentum. --Beman ___ Boost-cmake mailing list Boost-cmake@lists.boost.org http://lists.boost.org/mailman/list

Re: [Boost-cmake] Variant Builds and missing libraries

On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 4:49 PM, David Abrahams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > (Which answered another question that I was going to ask). > > > > Currently the CMake system will NOT do any of this. If this is the > > behavior that is wanted then the logic will need to be added to the > > cmake b

Re: [Boost-cmake] Progress Report

On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 12:26 PM, Michael Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I have been working hard on updating the CMake build system to match the > Boost trunk repository. As it stands I have been able to compile all the > libraries in static and dynamic multi-threaded debug modes. I can get a

Re: [Boost-cmake] README.txt and Welcome.txt?

On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 8:48 AM, Doug Gregor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 7:27 AM, Beman Dawes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > As part of the merge to trunk, two files got added to boost-root: > README.txt > > and Welcome.txt. > > > &g

[Boost-cmake] README.txt and Welcome.txt?

As part of the merge to trunk, two files got added to boost-root: README.txt and Welcome.txt. Was that intentional? If so, what are these files, why are they needed, and how are they to be maintained? Thanks, --Beman ___ Boost-cmake mailing list B

Re: [Boost-cmake] Want to help but need to prioritize TODO list

On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 6:08 PM, Michael Jackson < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Oct 31, 2008, at 5:58 PM, Doug Gregor wrote: > >> On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 5:54 PM, Michael Jackson >>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> So should I be committing what I have to the trunk. >>> >> >> Yes, please. >> >>

Re: [Boost-cmake] Testing Setup

On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 12:14 PM, Mike Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > I am working through the "testing" part of the build system at this point > and I have some questions about how the typical boost developer actually > runs the "tests". > > The tests are compiled using the build/source tree

Re: [Boost-cmake] Want to help but need to prioritize TODO list

On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 9:44 AM, Doug Gregor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 1:31 PM, Mike Jackson > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I would like to start contributing to the Boost-CMake integration effort > but > > I would like some help determining where to "jump in". Looking

Re: [Boost-cmake] CMake modularization update

On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 8:50 PM, Michael Jackson < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm not finding that file in either the trunk or the cmake branch.. but > there is a ./tools/regression/src/run.py file? That's a file used by the traditional regression testing, so I doubt it is the one you are looki

[Boost-cmake] Building docs

So that the CMake effort doesn't run into the same problems, please be aware that from the release manager's perspective one of the weakest points of the current system bjam based system is building the docs. The tool chain is very long, much longer that with library builds or tests. Difficult

Re: [Boost-cmake] Alpha-quality Windows installer for Boost 1.36.0

On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 10:40 PM, Doug Gregor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > * The resulting directory structure isn't quite right. IMO, the next level > > under /Program Files/Boost should be "boost_1_36". The level under that > > should be similar to the boost tree as distributed in the zip/bz2/e

Re: [Boost-cmake] Alpha-quality Windows installer for Boost 1.36.0

On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 5:40 PM, Doug Gregor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I've just rolled a new binary distribution for Visual Studio 2008/VC++ > 9.0 based on the Boost 1.36.0 branch. The installer is here: > > > http://www.osl.iu.edu/~dgregor/Boost-CMake/Boost-1.36.0-vc9.exe

Re: [Boost-cmake] Access to test reporting database?

On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 10:13 AM, troy d. straszheim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Beman Dawes wrote: > >> Are the results of the CMake based regression testing stored in a database >> I can access? >> > > Here's a dump, 865k rows: > > http://boost.

[Boost-cmake] Graphical binary installers for 1.36.0?

Is there still a plan to supply graphical binary installers for 1.36.0? If so, who needs to do what and when? In particular, does anything need to change as far as preparing the release goes? Thanks, --Beman ___ Boost-cmake mailing list Boost-cmake

[Boost-cmake] Access to test reporting database?

Are the results of the CMake based regression testing stored in a database I can access? In thinking about various reports and other outputs I'd like to see from the Boost regression testing system, I realized (1) it is unfair to ask others to invest the time to experiment with my random repor

Re: [Boost-cmake] new regression testing interface

On Sat, Jul 5, 2008 at 9:35 PM, David Abrahams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think the biggest problem with most of these systems is they default > to showing you lots instead of showing you what you want to know. In > other words, I guess I'm not optimistic we'll get what we want by taking > th

Re: [Boost-cmake] auto-modularization. Time to merge to main release branch?

On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 8:59 PM, David Abrahams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Doug Gregor wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 2:06 PM, David Abrahams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >> troy d. straszheim wrote: > >>> Saw some discussion on this... here's the story. I'll skip discussion > >>> of why o

Re: [Boost-cmake] auto-modularization. Time to merge to main release branch?

On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 4:51 PM, Doug Gregor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 4:45 PM, Beman Dawes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > What is the status of using CMake to run regression tests? > > > > What is the status of using CMake to run devel

Re: [Boost-cmake] auto-modularization. Time to merge to main release branch?

On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 2:06 PM, David Abrahams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > troy d. straszheim wrote: > > Saw some discussion on this... here's the story. I'll skip discussion > > of why one would want to do this at all :) > > > > I believe this clears the way to check the cmake stuff in to the

Re: [Boost-cmake] auto-modularization. Time to merge to main release branch?

On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 2:06 PM, David Abrahams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > troy d. straszheim wrote: > > Saw some discussion on this... here's the story. I'll skip discussion > > of why one would want to do this at all :) > > > > I believe this clears the way to check the cmake stuff in to the

Re: [Boost-cmake] Test feedback

On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 9:41 AM, troy d. straszheim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > David Abrahams wrote: > >> troy d. straszheim wrote: >> >> The test that causes this is just a program with a main() routine... It >>> seems like it should use boost.test, and boost.test should be >>> responsible for

Re: [Boost-cmake] Cmake & Boost Libraries

On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 10:41 AM, troy d. straszheim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Beman Dawes wrote: > >> >> Doug, you need to explain this to us Windows developers who don't have a >> clue as to how to manage multiple build variants of libraries without name &g

Re: [Boost-cmake] Cmake & Boost Libraries

On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 8:57 AM, David Abrahams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Beman Dawes wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 10:02 PM, Doug Gregor <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > > > > Don'

Re: [Boost-cmake] Some issues getting started on Win32

On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 10:08 AM, troy d. straszheim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > David Abrahams wrote: > >> Beman Dawes wrote: >> >>> >>> I thought cmake was supposed to be robust. This is very discouraging; it >>> implies cmake develo

Re: [Boost-cmake] Cmake & Boost Libraries

On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 10:02 PM, Doug Gregor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 8:00 PM, David Abrahams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Doug Gregor wrote: > >> On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 1:02 PM, troy d. straszheim < > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> Personally I find the embedding

Re: [Boost-cmake] Some issues getting started on Win32

On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 10:31 PM, troy d. straszheim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > David Abrahams wrote: > >> troy d straszheim wrote: >> >> Things look good. So... Dave is it possible you were doing >>> configuration of cmake in a build directory that had failed >>> configuration once? >>> >> >

Re: [Boost-cmake] Some issues getting started on Win32

On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 8:02 PM, David Abrahams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > troy d straszheim wrote: > > > > > Things look good. So... Dave is it possible you were doing > > configuration of cmake in a build directory that had failed > > configuration once? > Hum... That explains failures I've

Re: [Boost-cmake] Component-based installers in CPack

On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 9:42 AM, Doug Gregor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Kitware just accepted my patch to build component-based installers > with CMake. Good work! > This is the change that allowed the construction of > "modular" Boost binary installers directly with CMake, where one can > s

Re: [Boost-cmake] Test feedback

On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 8:25 AM, troy d. straszheim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Beman Dawes wrote: > >>I didn't have a clue as to what BOOST_BUILD_SLAVE_HOSTNAME should >>be, so just left it blank. That resulted in the "Traash Demo" >>

Re: [Boost-cmake] Test feedback

On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 3:37 PM, Beman Dawes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 10:43 AM, troy d. straszheim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >> Beman Dawes wrote: >> >>> I'm still hung at the step that says &

Re: [Boost-cmake] Test feedback

On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 10:43 AM, troy d. straszheim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Beman Dawes wrote: > >> I'm still hung at the step that says " Enable BOOST_BUILD_SLAVE and >> BOOST_BUILD_TESTING." >> >> There are no such entries to enable. &

Re: [Boost-cmake] Test feedback

On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 5:38 PM, KSpam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Monday 16 June 2008 12:58:23 Beman Dawes wrote: > > * The "Configuration testing" section is totally opaque to someone (me!) > > who has never used edit_cache. Any why is it called &qu

Re: [Boost-cmake] Test feedback

On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 7:14 PM, troy d. straszheim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Beman Dawes wrote: > >> Troy, >> >> Here is some initial feedback" >> > > Hey Beman, > > All good feedback. I neglected to mention that the documents assume &g

[Boost-cmake] Test feedback

Troy, Here is some initial feedback" * > make a working directory somewhere, check out the source to "src" and make a directory "build". CD into "build" and execute This is less than clear. What source? Check out from where? Do the directories actually have to be named "src" and "build"? If so,

Re: [Boost-cmake] Testing?

On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 11:50 AM, troy d. straszheim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Beman Dawes wrote: > >> Hi Troy, >> >> Are you at the point yet where it would be helpful to have some test >> slaves? >> > > Nearly. One thing I need to work out is

[Boost-cmake] Testing?

Hi Troy, Are you at the point yet where it would be helpful to have some test slaves? If so, are there any instructions available yet? I've got Windows and Linux machines with enough spare cycles that they could be used as slaves. --Beman ___ Boost-cm

Re: [Boost-cmake] CTest and logfile scraping

On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 12:20 PM, Doug Gregor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Troy, > > On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 3:50 PM, troy d. straszheim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > 4. Tell how many *successful* build steps were executed. ctest > > reports only failures. For instance, if I run an i