Re: [Boost-cmake] Problem building NSIS installer.

On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 12:12 AM, Miguel A. Figueroa-Villanueva wrote: > On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 1:06 AM, Doug Gregor wrote: >> The URL for downloading packages can be set in the configuration. When >> the full CPack process completes, the CPackUploads directory will >> con

Re: [Boost-cmake] Problem building NSIS installer.

Hello, On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 12:07 PM, Miguel A. Figueroa-Villanueva wrote: > I've been trying to build the NSIS installer, so that I can install > only the headers for the libraries that I need. Please bear in mind > that I don't have much experience with either CPack or NSIS, but I'm > still t

Re: [Boost-cmake] Testing dependencies

On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 5:50 AM, Brad King wrote: > Instead we should have one add_custom_target() to do all the tests > for a single library (e.g. function).  Within the target there would > be file-level rules created by add_custom_command().  This will > translate to one .vcproj file per library

Re: [Boost-cmake] CMake for development testing

On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 7:30 AM, Bill Hoffman wrote: > Brad King wrote: >> >> David Abrahams wrote: >>> >>>  67/ 79 Testing Python-result                    Passed >>>  68/ 79 Testing Python-string_literal         ***Failed >>>  69/ 79 Testing Python-borrowed               ***Failed >>>  70/ 79 Test

Re: [Boost-cmake] test library .lib name in Windows

On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 1:22 PM, Daniel Nelson wrote: > I built Boost 1.38 with CMake and I'm using CMake to build my programs in > Windows using MSVC and auto linking but I'm getting errors like: > > LINK : fatal error LNK1104: cannot open file 'libboost_unit_test_framework- > vc90-mt-sgd-1_38.li

Re: [Boost-cmake] placement_new test failure under VC++8

On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 3:57 PM, David Wolfe wrote: >>> A runtime error in one of the unit tests has been making it difficult >>> to get continuous builds going under Windows.  I get about halfway >>> through the tests and then a message box pops up... > >>> If I click 'Ignore', the rest of the te

Re: [Boost-cmake] How to remove spurious dashboard results?

On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 5:07 AM, David Cole wrote: > There is a way, but you have to be logged in as "project administrator" for > that project on the CDash server. Once logged in as project admin, there is > a "folder" icon on each row of the dashboard. Clicking on that folder icon > allows you t

Re: [Boost-cmake] placement_new test failure under VC++8

On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 9:47 PM, David Wolfe wrote: > A runtime error in one of the unit tests has been making it difficult to > get continuous builds going under Windows.  I get about halfway through > the tests and then a message box pops up containing the following text: > >  Debug Error! > >  

Re: [Boost-cmake] Labels for known failures

On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 2:31 PM, troy d. straszheim wrote: > Doug Gregor wrote: >> >> Note that, for these labels to work, the tester needs to be running >> CMake 2.7.x (which is currently in CMake CVS but isn't yet an official >> release). This is pretty importan

[Boost-cmake] Labels for known failures

I've added the ability to mark up known failures in the regression tests directly in the CMake files for those tests. For example, here's one such description of known failures: boost_test_run(optional_test_ref KNOWN_FAILURES "gcc-4.[0-3].[0-9]-.*") The boost_test_run macro use creates the

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

On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 6:51 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.

Re: [Boost-cmake] Tool: tracking jamfile changes

On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 11:59 AM, troy d. straszheim wrote: > I was playing around with git and put together a script to help us keep up > with what is happening in bjamland.  It is run every 10 minutes by a > cronjob.  The output is here: > > http://sodium.resophonic.com/cmakefiles-release-inspec

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

On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 7:27 PM, 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.  You can tweak this in the toplevel CMakeLists.txt. > Look for BO

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

On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 6:41 AM, troy d. straszheim wrote: > Tan, Tom (Shanghai) wrote: >> >> This is a re-post from the boost-users  list, Thanks to Troy d. straszheim >> who reminded me there that there’s a dedicated list here. >> > > Good to see you over here > >> --

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

On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 5:37 AM, Beman Dawes wrote: > 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? >>

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

On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 6:33 AM, Beman Dawes wrote: > 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

Re: [Boost-cmake] CDash dashboard now available

On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 11:02 AM, Doug Gregor wrote: > On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 10:56 AM, Vladimir Prus > wrote: >> On Tuesday 12 May 2009 20:50:19 Doug Gregor wrote: >>> On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 9:27 AM, Vladimir Prus >>> wrote: >>> > On Monday 11 May

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

On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 1:49 PM, Beman Dawes wrote: > 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 >>>

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

On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 1:37 PM, Brad King wrote: > Doug Gregor wrote: >> >> On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 1:02 PM, Beman Dawes wrote: >>> >>> I first tried to use the VC++ IDE compiler. The Solution file is so >>> large it is impossibly slow to load and u

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

On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 1:27 PM, Beman Dawes wrote: > 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 >> >>  n

Re: [Boost-cmake] CDash dashboard now available

On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 1:11 PM, Beman Dawes wrote: > 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 int

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

On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 1:02 PM, Beman Dawes wrote: > I first tried to use the VC++ IDE compiler. The Solution file is so > large it is impossibly slow to load and unload. A non-starter. Bill or > Brad had warned about that, so no surprise, and I just moved on to the > command line compiler. That'

Re: [Boost-cmake] CDash dashboard now available

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? > > I'm already playing with trying to create a VC++ installer for > Win

Re: [Boost-cmake] CDash dashboard now available

On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 10:56 AM, Vladimir Prus wrote: > On Tuesday 12 May 2009 20:50:19 Doug Gregor wrote: >> On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 9:27 AM, Vladimir Prus >> wrote: >> > On Monday 11 May 2009 19:40:35 Doug Gregor wrote: >> >> On Mon, May 11, 2009 at

Re: [Boost-cmake] CDash dashboard now available

On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 9:27 AM, Vladimir Prus wrote: > On Monday 11 May 2009 19:40:35 Doug Gregor wrote: >> On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 6:55 AM, Vladimir Prus >> wrote: >> > On Monday 11 May 2009 01:24:08 Beman Dawes wrote: >> > >> >> I'm going to

Re: [Boost-cmake] CDash dashboard now available

On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 6:55 AM, Vladimir Prus wrote: > On Monday 11 May 2009 01:24:08 Beman Dawes wrote: > >> I'm going to experiment with pre-built binary installers, with an eye >> to supplying them for the 1.40.0 release. > > For what platforms? Windows and Mac will give us the biggest "bang"

Re: [Boost-cmake] CDash dashboard now available

On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 12:44 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 i

[Boost-cmake] CDash dashboard now available

I have created a CDash dashboard for Boost, kindly hosted by Kitware. The dashboard is here: http://www.cdash.org/CDashPublic/index.php?project=Boost The CMake build system on the Boost release branch is now configured to build and test with CTest, then submit to this dashboard. If you configur

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

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. > > Horrors! As a boost developer, the last thing in the world I want is > to have to know anything a

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

On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 2:21 PM, Michael Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Probably the best approach is if the user enables the "BUILD_TESTING" > option then I'll have to enable all variants of the libraries to also be > built. This would parallel what boost.build does currently. That makes s

Re: [Boost-cmake] CMake modularization update

On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 11:55 AM, Michael Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Any ideas on what we would like to keep "un-modularized" for now? Looking > at the dependency > graph here are my own thoughts on which libraries should probably be kept > un-modularized for now: > >mpl >

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

On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 9:01 AM, Beman Dawes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 t

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

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. > > Was that intentional? Yes. > If so, what are these files, why are they needed, and how are they to be > maintained? They're

Re: [Boost-cmake] CMake modularization update

On Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 4:57 PM, Michael Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > OK I think I got it figured out. I added a new function > boost_additional_test_dependencies() that takes the name of the library that > is being tested in addition to a BOOST_DEPENDS optional arguments which you > list th

Re: [Boost-cmake] CMake modularization update

On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 6:13 PM, Michael Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > macro(boost_test_add_dependent_includes includes) > foreach (include ${includes}) >#message(STATUS "include: ${include}") >include_directories("${Boost_SOURCE_DIR}/libs/${include}/include") > endforeach (include

Re: [Boost-cmake] CMake modularization update

On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 6:00 PM, Michael Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Oct 31, 2008, at 5:26 PM, Doug Gregor wrote: > >> On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 5:01 PM, Michael Jackson >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> On Oct 31, 2008, at 2:16 P

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

On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 5:54 PM, Michael Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Oct 31, 2008, at 11:32 AM, Doug Gregor wrote: > >> On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 10:43 AM, Beman Dawes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> That argues for merging into the trunk

Re: [Boost-cmake] CMake modularization update

On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 5:01 PM, Michael Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Oct 31, 2008, at 2:16 PM, Doug Gregor wrote: > >>>>> >>>>> What I am not sure of is what to do with the remaining headers in the >>>>> "boost" di

Re: [Boost-cmake] CMake modularization update

On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 12:07 PM, Michael Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Oct 30, 2008, at 11:14 PM, Doug Gregor wrote: > >> On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 2:26 PM, Michael Jackson >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Oct 30,

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

On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 12:01 PM, Michael Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Oct 31, 2008, at 11:32 AM, Doug Gregor wrote: > >> On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 10:43 AM, Beman Dawes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> That argues for merging into

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

On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 10:43 AM, Beman Dawes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That argues for merging into the trunk sooner rather than later. OTOH, if > there isn't any new build system documentation and/or the new build system > is unstable, then merging will cause frustration and start things off o

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

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 at the list > it seems like some

Re: [Boost-cmake] Options to only Build A single Library

Hi Mike, On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:34 AM, Mike Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I have updated to the latest Boost-Cmake from the SVN repository and ran > CMake to configure my build. I thought there used to be an option for each > library as to whether it would be built or not. Has this opti

Re: [Boost-cmake] CMake modularization update

On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 2:26 PM, Michael Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Oct 30, 2008, at 2:17 PM, David Abrahams wrote: > >> >> on Wed Oct 29 2008, "Doug Gregor" wrote: >> >>>> I added some debugging into the BoostCore.cmake

Re: [Boost-cmake] CMake modularization update

On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 2:17 PM, David Abrahams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > on Wed Oct 29 2008, "Doug Gregor" wrote: > >>> I added some debugging into the BoostCore.cmake modularization code so that >>> I can try and figure out what has been and has

Re: [Boost-cmake] CMake modularization update

On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 4:17 PM, Michael Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Just an update on what I have been messing around with today (really just > want to be sure I am understanding what _really_ needs to be done). > > > I merged the "branches/cmake/release" into the "trunk" locally on my ma

Re: [Boost-cmake] boost cmake on OSX

On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 4:08 PM, Mike Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Supposedly there is support in CMake 2.6.1 for Frameworks on OS X. I have > never tried it though. Interesting. This would certainly make a great subproject of Boost-CMake, to try to turn Boost into a proper framework on Mac

Re: [Boost-cmake] boost cmake status

On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 3:40 PM, Mike Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Aug 6, 2008, at 3:29 PM, troy d. straszheim wrote: > >> Anyhow, you might be more interested in the new installer stuff >> Doug has been putting together: >> >> http://www.osl.iu.edu/~dgregor/Boost-CMake/ >> >> A test run

Re: [Boost-cmake] boost cmake status

On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 3:29 PM, troy d. straszheim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Matthias Schabel wrote: >> >> After experiencing non-stop frustration with building boost 1.36 on OS X >> with bjam/boost.build, I was excited to discover that there has been >> significant work on porting to CMake. A c

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: > P.S. I'm running into some trouble with building the Mac OS X > installer, so that'll have to wait a little longer. It was a stupid bug. Here's the Mac OS X installer: http://www.osl.iu.edu

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

Thanks Beman, Niels for the feedback. I'll tweak the installer as best I can. A few comments inline... On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 8:12 PM, Beman Dawes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > * Same problem Niels reported, except worse. I could only see a few pixels > of the top of capital letters, so would not

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

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 The installer itself is relatively small, because it downloads all of the selected components on-th

Re: [Boost-cmake] Graphical binary installers for 1.36.0?

On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 10:13 AM, Beman Dawes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Is there still a plan to supply graphical binary installers for 1.36.0? Yes. > If so, who needs to do what and when? Major steps: (1) Get the functionality we need into CMake/CPack (done; it'll be in CMake 2.6.1) -

[Boost-cmake] BUILD_BOOST_* and TEST_BOOST_* options

Now that we've started modularizing everything in Boost, we have a heck of a lot more BUILD_BOOST_* options in the CMake configuration, as well as the ton of TEST_BOOST_* macros we had before. I see a few problems with this approach: 1) The sheer volume of these options hides other, more importa

Re: [Boost-cmake] Patch to BoostCore to remove modularize.py dependency

On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 3:29 PM, David Abrahams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > on Sun Jul 13 2008, "Doug Gregor" wrote: > >> I went ahead and hacked this up; it's in the tree now. Looks like we >> have a bit of work to do to get all of the dependencies

Re: [Boost-cmake] Patch to BoostCore to remove modularize.py dependency

On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 8:02 PM, Doug Gregor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Miguel, > > On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 4:16 PM, Miguel A. Figueroa-Villanueva > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I have attached a patch for your consideration. It basically removes >> the

Re: [Boost-cmake] new regression testing interface

On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 2:02 PM, troy d. straszheim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I did some work on this: > > http://boost.resophonic.com/trac/traash > > Switched sqlite => mysql, added a few indexes, changed around the views so > as not to > render an entire 6k step build/test run at once. Seem

Re: [Boost-cmake] Patch to BoostCore to remove modularize.py dependency

Hi Miguel, On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 4:16 PM, Miguel A. Figueroa-Villanueva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I have attached a patch for your consideration. It basically removes > the dependency on modularize.py by using cmake commands. This should > work on any platform. Great! This worked well for me,

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

On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 10:24 AM, troy d. straszheim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Beman Dawes wrote: > Ok. As it turns out, now that our directory hierarchy again mirrors that of > branches/release, it isn't so bad to just track the release branch. I'm > content to wait on merging with trunk, we d

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

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 developers local tests? Troy's the master here :) > Until CMake is ready to take over both of those tasks, I don't want

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 main

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

On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 4:31 PM, Miguel A. Figueroa-Villanueva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 2:06 PM, David Abrahams wrote: >> troy d. straszheim wrote: >>> and those HEADERS from each library will get moved from toplevel boost/ >>> to each library's libs/*/include/boost direct

Re: [Boost-cmake] Status and future of boost-cmake

Hello Miguel, On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 3:41 AM, Miguel A. Figueroa-Villanueva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I guess your talking about the DEPENDS ... parameter passed to the > macro, right? Yes, the DEPENDS argument that shows up in the module.cmake file needs to list all of the libraries that this

Re: [Boost-cmake] Status and future of boost-cmake

Hi Miguel, On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 1:12 AM, Miguel A. Figueroa-Villanueva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I would like to know what the current status of the boost cmake build > is. I guess that what I would like to know is where is this going? > I've tried to read the mailing list archives as much as

Re: [Boost-cmake] Cmake & Boost Libraries

On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 11:39 PM, David Abrahams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Doug Gregor wrote: >> I suggest that the vast majority of users should be using the >> multi-threaded versions; those that truly will only use Boost in >> single-threaded environments and are c

Re: [Boost-cmake] Cmake & Boost Libraries

On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 10:23 PM, David Abrahams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Doug Gregor wrote: > But as you know, it's not just about multiple compilers: it's about > incompatible ABI options Yes, I know. This is typically handled by having the user just set the optio

Re: [Boost-cmake] Cmake & Boost Libraries

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 of toolset and version in library names to &

Re: [Boost-cmake] Cmake & Boost Libraries

On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 1:02 PM, troy d. straszheim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Personally I find the embedding of toolset and version in library names to > be problematic... in this case it makes the FindBoost.cmake really > complicated and binds the (what should be simple) business of using the

Re: [Boost-cmake] 1.36.0 time. svnmerge clues?

Hi Troy, On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 3:40 PM, troy d. straszheim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Looks to me like it is time to start tracking this upcoming 1.36.0 release > in an effort to have the cmakeable version out at the > same instant as the bjammable version. I'm willing to put in some time > t

[Boost-cmake] Component-based installers in CPack

Kitware just accepted my patch to build component-based installers with CMake. This is the change that allowed the construction of "modular" Boost binary installers directly with CMake, where one can select which Boost libraries (and what parts of those Boost libraries) to install. This functionall

Re: [Boost-cmake] popups on windows

On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 10:48 AM, troy d. straszheim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I've made some progress here, have managed to get vista and XP posting build > results to http://boost.resophonic.com/trac/traash. It isn't stable yet but > should be soon. > > One problem I'm having are these nasty

Re: [Boost-cmake] Testing without CTest, XML without logscraping

Hi Troy, On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 6:04 PM, troy d. straszheim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I've just make a big commit to the CMake/releases branch, > think we've made a very solid step here. Turns out no > patches to cmake were required. Cool. I'll try to review these changes in the next couple o

Re: [Boost-cmake] CTest and logfile scraping

Hi Troy, On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 3:50 PM, troy d. straszheim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > When run, CTest reads these lists of tests in, runs them, and > redirects the output to logfiles. It then must scrape results of > builds/tests out of logfiles, tries (with varying degrees of success) > to id