Gentoo Websites Logo
Go to: Gentoo Home Documentation Forums Lists Bugs Planet Store Wiki Get Gentoo!
Bug 456212 - dev-db/mysql-workbench-5.2.45 requires certain version of boost?
Summary: dev-db/mysql-workbench-5.2.45 requires certain version of boost?
Status: RESOLVED INVALID
Alias: None
Product: Gentoo Linux
Classification: Unclassified
Component: New packages (show other bugs)
Hardware: All Linux
: Normal normal (vote)
Assignee: Hans de Graaff
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2013-02-08 19:40 UTC by Sebastian Pipping
Modified: 2013-02-10 07:27 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:
Package list:
Runtime testing required: ---


Attachments
Build log (dev-db:mysql-workbench-5.2.45:20130208-180155.log,9.09 KB, text/plain)
2013-02-08 19:40 UTC, Sebastian Pipping
Details

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Sebastian Pipping gentoo-dev 2013-02-08 19:40:21 UTC
Created attachment 338346 [details]
Build log

With boost 1.48.0-r2 still around, the dependencies are satisfied but compilation errors out with

  configure: error: "BOOST library is missing"

I'll try again with later boost and post again.  For now I'll probably propose requiring a minimum version of boost to help people upgrading older systems.
Comment 1 Hans de Graaff gentoo-dev Security 2013-02-09 07:52:26 UTC
As far as I know that should work. Please include the config.log (as mentioned in the build log).
Comment 2 Sebastian Pipping gentoo-dev 2013-02-09 22:14:10 UTC
(In reply to comment #1)
> As far as I know that should work.

I have upgraded my system to boost 1.53.0 by now.


> Please include the config.log (as
> mentioned in the build log).

I would have, but the file was gone when portage was done.


So I guess we can either

 a) make it require boost 1.49.0-r2 or later explicitly
    and resolve as fixed or

 b) close as invalid as i cannot provide any more information.

I'm fine either way.
Comment 3 Hans de Graaff gentoo-dev Security 2013-02-10 07:27:03 UTC
(In reply to comment #2)

> So I guess we can either
> 
>  a) make it require boost 1.49.0-r2 or later explicitly
>     and resolve as fixed or
> 
>  b) close as invalid as i cannot provide any more information.

We can only do b) since there is no indication that a) is actually true. I think something else went wrong with that boost check, but we won't be able to tell now.