From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-10-02 11:41:29
Markus SchÃ¶pflin <markus.schoepflin_at_[hidden]> writes:
> David Abrahams wrote:
>> Markus SchÃ¶pflin <markus.schoepflin_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>> Ok, I think I understood that now. This difference probably results from
>>> the fact that when compiling python at the TestDrive machine I linked libz
>>> statically, but not when compiling at Comsoft.
>> Oooh. Well, which one of those is standard?
> No idea. There is no standard, probably.
>>> Maybe I should change that, because the static libz will most probably not
>>> be found by the link process, as it's not installed in a standard
>> Heh, yeah. I'm not sure how the build system could figure out all the
>> requirements for building against any particular Python installation.
>> Maybe we should remove the -lz addition as well.
> I removed that already.
Only on the release branch. That's not too good. The official
procedure is documented: change on the trunk first.
> It gave my syntax errors anyway when trying to
> build boost.python.
Huh? What kind of syntax errors? It should only affect your link
line. bjam syntax errors?
lib z ;
was missing near the top of python.jam. That omission could have
caused an error (but not a syntax error).
> I have recompiled and reinstalled python in the meanwhile. It took
> several tries to remove the dependency to the static libz, but I
> think I have a working configuration now. The regression test
> currently is running again, hopefully it will show better results.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Boost-Build list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk