Re: [Boost-build] Boost.Python build (config ?) error

Subject: Re: [Boost-build] Boost.Python build (config ?) error
From: Tom Kent (lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-03-31 21:41:49

On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 5:35 PM, Tom Kent <lists_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> My mailserver (dreamhost) was having issues, sending again.
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Tom Kent <lists_at_[hidden]>
> Date: Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 6:50 AM
> Subject: Re: [Boost-build] Boost.Python build (config ?) error
> To: "Boost.Build developer's and user's list" <boost-build_at_[hidden]
> >
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 3:59 AM, Sophonet via Boost-build <
> boost-build_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
>> Hi list,
>>
>> thanks for the correction, which partly solves the problem which I have
>> more or less reported at the same time (http://lists.boost.org/boost-
>> build/2017/03/29342.php).
>>
>> However, it is still not possible to specify a boost version in the b2
>> configuration command line. Always the first entry of user-config.jam is
>> selected.
>>
>> Example: I have python 3.5 and python 3.6 installed on my system (conda).
>> My user-config.jam looks like this (note: 3.5 is first):
>>
>>
>> using python : 3.5 : C:/Miniconda3/envs/py35/python.exe
>>              : #includes
>>              : #libs
>>              : <address-model>64 ;
>> using python : 3.6 : C:/Miniconda3/envs/py36/python.exe
>>              : #includes
>>              : #libs
>>              : <address-model>64 ;
>>
>> However,
>>
>> b2 --build-dir=D:\build\boost_1_64_0 --prefix=D:\install\86
>> address-model=64 python=3.6 --with-python variant=release
>> [--debug-configuration]
>>
>> the given python version (which is 3.6) seems to be ignored. A snippet of
>> the debug output is copied below. Note that it says "...requested
>> configuration matched" for the first try (which is 3.5). The final
>> boost_python dll in this example incorrectly depends on python 3.5.
>
>
> I think I'm seeing a similar issue with the beta builds that I've been
> building. Last night I ran the soon-to-be beta 2 build, after seeing this
> thread I looked at what libraries it created and noticed that all the
> 32-bit builds were missing the python library.
>
> Here's my user-config.jam:
> import toolset : using ;
>
> using python
> : 2.7 # version
> : # Interperter/path to dir
> : D:\\ReleaseBuild\\Python27-32\\include # includes
> : D:\\ReleaseBuild\\Python27-32\\libs # libs
> : <address-model>32 <address-model> # conditions
> ;
>
> using python
> : 2.7 # version
> : # Interperter/path to dir
> : D:\\ReleaseBuild\\Python27-64\\include # includes
> : D:\\ReleaseBuild\\Python27-64\\libs # libs
> : <address-model>64 # conditions
> ;
>
> using python
> : 3.6 # version
> : # Interperter/path to dir
> : D:\\ReleaseBuild\\Python36-32\\include # includes
> : D:\\ReleaseBuild\\Python36-32\\libs # libs
> : <address-model>32 <address-model> # conditions
> ;
>
> using python
> : 3.6 # version
> : # Interperter/path to dir
> : D:\\ReleaseBuild\\Python36-64\\include # includes
> : D:\\ReleaseBuild\\Python36-64\\libs # libs
> : <address-model>64 # conditions
> ;
>
> You'll notice that I have two versions of each of python 2 and 3, but they
> are the same version number, the only difference is which one goes with
> which address-model.
>
> The builds appear to be fine, each one outputs the line:
>     - python                   : building
>
> There are too many warnings and such that scroll by during the build, so I
> don't know if it complained about it during the build. However, I run each
> build a second time immediately after, to capture errors with anything that
> built and nothing shows up related to python. For 64-bit both python and
> python3 libraries are generated, for 32-bit there are no python libraries.
>
> I'm not positive, but I think this is a regression from the 1.63 release.
> For that release, I only tried to build python 2, but it successfully built
> for both 32 and 64 bit configurations. It could be something with my setup
> here (I"ve also rolled version numbers from 2.7.5. to 2.7.13), but I'd lean
> towards it being something in the build/python source.
>
> Thoughts?
> Tom
>
>
Nevermind, there is no regression vs. 1.63 here, the problem was in my
user-config.jam file (how many times has that happened!).

For both the python 2 and 3 configs, I had a 32-bit rule that included the
conditions section:
: <address-model>32 <address-model> # conditions
The goal here was to support both builds with address-model=32 and no
address-model specifier. On 1.64.0.beta.2 this causes it to not find any
python version and fail silently. On 1.63 it shows up as an error because
python couldn't detect a suitable version.
For my build script I simply removed the conditions, so if the
address-model isn't "64" then it will use that version...this works, but I
had be lead to believe that the original line would work as well. Another
thing that *doesn't* work is having two separate configs for the same
version (for a total of three when including 64 bit) with one specifying
<address-model>32 and another with no conditions. This caused an immediate
error that prevented the build.

This clearly isn't a show-stopper, but it seems like it should be cleaned
up....not sure how.

Tom