Re: [boost] [Boost-announce] [1.37.0 beta] Beta release available on SourceForge

Subject: Re: [boost] [Boost-announce] [1.37.0 beta] Beta release available on SourceForge
From: Jens Seidel (jensseidel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-10-27 10:43:11

Hi,

On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 08:55:15AM -0400, Beman Dawes wrote:
> 1.37.0 beta 1 is available on SourceForge. See http://tinyurl.com/674rcl

So you started announcing beta versions? Great, I really like this              
considering the errors which bothered me in the past in released                
versions.                                                         

> The beta period will be approximately ten days. Please post bug reports  
> to either the boost developer or user lists, but also let us hear about  
> success stories too!

I wonder why the same problems as in previous releases occur again:

Many files in the tarball have wrong permission, e.g.
libs/test/doc/html/execution-monitor/compilation.html: -rwxr-xr-x

Why is an HTML file marked executable?

Please check either the output of "find -type f -perm +111" or the
svn:executable property in the repository.

###############################################################

configure cannot be called from a separate build directory:

boost_1_37_0_beta1/build$ ../configure --prefix=/home/jens/local
../configure: 210: ./tools/jam/src/build.sh: not found
Building Boost.Jam with toolset ... cd: 223: can't cd to ./tools/jam/src

###############################################################

There are again a lot of warnings (gcc-4.3.2) which can easily
be avoided. The first one:
libs/program_options/src/options_description.cpp|74| warning: suggest
explicit braces to avoid ambiguous ‘else’

Since I learned in the past that such patches are often ignored
I do not send a patch. It's also trivially reproducable for everyone
(as gcc is free).

##############################################################

A minor cosmetic issue:

./configure --show-libraries
shows:

         The
         following
         libraries
         require
         building:
         -
         date_time
         -
         filesystem
         -
         function_types
[snipped]

Are the dashs useful? I would prefer a more compact output.

##############################################################

All my internal test cases work well with this version of Boost. But
one has of course to ignore warnings in Boost's code using
-isystem <path_to_boost_headers>, at least for gcc.

Jens