Re: [boost] Re: RC_1_30_2 tagged for release

From: Martin Wille (mw8329_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-08-08 14:18:37

David Abrahams wrote:
> Martin Wille writes:
> 
> 
>>David Abrahams wrote:
>>
>>>It appears that the tagging step for Version_1_30_1 got messed up
>>>somehow.
>>>Please have a look at RC_1_30_2, which is our release candidate for
>>>Version 1_30_2, and let me know if there are any problems.
>>
>>I'm not able to run the Linux regression tests on that branch.
>>process_jam_log fails due to an out_of_range being thrown from
>>basic_string::substr. Probably, some files are still missing for
>>the tests to work properly. 
> 
> 
> It's hard to see how that's possible, but it is
...
> Fixed the problem.  That was also the cause of the problem with
> RC_1_30_1.

Thanks for sorting this out!

> Please try again, everybody.

The fix made to the gcc toolset regarding the use of the
GXX variable should be backported to 1_30_2. Currently
most of the tests fail when I use the toolsets of 1_30_2,
since my setup uses the GXX variable.

Regards,
m