Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [1.49.0] Release candidates available
From: Barend Gehrels (barend_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-02-20 16:11:31

Hi Daniel,

On 20-2-2012 21:03, Daniel James wrote:
> On 20 February 2012 18:39, Barend Gehrels<barend_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> Hi Beman,
>> On 20-2-2012 19:05, Beman Dawes wrote:
>>> Release candidate files for 1.49.0 are available at
>>> As always, the release managers would appreciate it if you download
>>> the candidate of your choice and give building it a try. Please report
>>> both success and failure, and anything else that is noteworthy.
>>> This helps ensure the candidates build OK before we push them out to
>>> SourceForge.
>> The Boost.Geometry doc's are from 1.48.
>> At least, I downloaded the build-release-docs.7z from the site you pointed
>> at and they are dated 2011/10/09, and their contents is indeed old, w.r.t.
>> Boost.Geometry
>> For 1.49 we did a substantial update in documentation so I hope it will be
>> included. All the qbk files are in the Release branch.
>> The other files (as far as I can see) do not contain Boost.Geometry doc
>> (neither boost-release-docs.7z does)
>> The folder libs does not contain generated documentation so it is neither
>> there.
>> If I can be of help, please notice me.
> It stopped working after changeset 76991, which changed the geometry
> script to use a relative path to the b2 executable at the root of
> boost, but it isn't there in my setup. I guess this was done to avoid
> using trunk b2 with the release branch. The easiest thing to do would
> be to change the script to copy b2 into the expected location and run
> another documentation build. I'll do that now.

Thanks for your answer and for your action.

I'm very sorry about that - indeed bjam causes big problems at my system
on the release branch - it does not work anymore (because of
project.jam). I've complained about that on this list but it seems I'm
the only one, which I cannot imagine. Running b2 from release branch is
fine - which is the cause of the change.

Anyway - sorry about breaking it that way, I should have been more
careful. Thanks for taking action.

What's the best next step? Can it stay like it is or should I revert it?

Regards, Barend

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at