Re: libcmis compile failure

2013-09-05 Thread Miklos Vajna
Hi, On Wed, Sep 04, 2013 at 08:15:03PM +0400, Ivan Timofeev wrote: > > Hmm, but we bundle boost 1.54. What's the point of using system > > boost, but internal libcmis? > > A wish to build with as much system libraries as possible maybe. :) We > require quite recent libcmis >= 0.4.0. I understa

Re: libcmis compile failure

2013-09-04 Thread bjoern
Hi, On Wed, Sep 04, 2013 at 05:50:05PM +0200, Miklos Vajna wrote: > On Wed, Sep 04, 2013 at 06:16:16PM +0400, Ivan Timofeev > wrote: > > Quoting the report: > > "It compiles successfully on 4.7.0 with -std=c++98". > > > > So, should we add this flag for libcmis? > > Hmm, but we bundle boost 1.

Re: libcmis compile failure

2013-09-04 Thread Miklos Vajna
On Wed, Sep 04, 2013 at 06:16:16PM +0400, Ivan Timofeev wrote: > Quoting the report: > "It compiles successfully on 4.7.0 with -std=c++98". > > So, should we add this flag for libcmis? Hmm, but we bundle boost 1.54. What's the point of using system boost, but internal libcmis? Wouldn't it make

Re: libcmis compile failure

2013-09-04 Thread Ivan Timofeev
On 04.09.2013 19:50, Miklos Vajna wrote: > On Wed, Sep 04, 2013 at 06:16:16PM +0400, Ivan Timofeev > wrote: >> Quoting the report: "It compiles successfully on 4.7.0 with >> -std=c++98". >> >> So, should we add this flag for libcmis? > > Hmm, but we bundle boost 1.54. What's the point of using s

libcmis compile failure

2013-09-04 Thread Ivan Timofeev
Hi, currently some tinderboxes are red. It seems libcmis encounters a bug in boost<=1.49: https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/6785 "read_json does not compile on GCC 4.7.0 with std=c++11". Quoting the report: "It compiles successfully on 4.7.0 with -std=c++98". So, should we add this flag fo