Bug#701377: [pkg-boost-devel] Bug#701377: boost1.49: ftbfs with GCC-4.8

On 1 March 2013 23:41, Daniel Hartwig wrote: > On 2 March 2013 06:37, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote: >> Meh. I see little point of fixing this in ubuntu as C11 in gcc-4.7 is >> still not stable and is not encouraged to be used. > > Fair enough. No bug reports about it, and by now people start moving >

Bug#701377: [pkg-boost-devel] Bug#701377: boost1.49: ftbfs with GCC-4.8

On 2 March 2013 06:37, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote: > Meh. I see little point of fixing this in ubuntu as C11 in gcc-4.7 is > still not stable and is not encouraged to be used. Fair enough. No bug reports about it, and by now people start moving to boost1.50 anyway. Bye now -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, ema

Bug#701377: [pkg-boost-devel] Bug#701377: boost1.49: ftbfs with GCC-4.8

On 1 March 2013 16:56, Daniel Hartwig wrote: > On 1 March 2013 23:55, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote: >> On 1 March 2013 14:17, Daniel Hartwig wrote: >>> On 1 March 2013 21:14, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote: In Ubuntu, instead of applying the full patch against 1.49, we went for a minimalistic hack/

Bug#701377: [pkg-boost-devel] Bug#701377: boost1.49: ftbfs with GCC-4.8

On 1 March 2013 23:55, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote: > On 1 March 2013 14:17, Daniel Hartwig wrote: >> On 1 March 2013 21:14, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote: >>> In Ubuntu, instead of applying the full patch against 1.49, we went >>> for a minimalistic hack/patch to workaround TIME_UTC in eglibc-2.16. >>> Sim

Bug#701377: [pkg-boost-devel] Bug#701377: boost1.49: ftbfs with GCC-4.8

On 1 March 2013 14:17, Daniel Hartwig wrote: > On 1 March 2013 21:14, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote: >> In Ubuntu, instead of applying the full patch against 1.49, we went >> for a minimalistic hack/patch to workaround TIME_UTC in eglibc-2.16. >> Simply undef TIME_UTC if defined. > > Is that expected to

Bug#701377: [pkg-boost-devel] Bug#701377: boost1.49: ftbfs with GCC-4.8

On 1 March 2013 21:14, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote: > In Ubuntu, instead of applying the full patch against 1.49, we went > for a minimalistic hack/patch to workaround TIME_UTC in eglibc-2.16. > Simply undef TIME_UTC if defined. Is that expected to work for a program that uses both libboost-thread and

Bug#701377: [pkg-boost-devel] Bug#701377: boost1.49: ftbfs with GCC-4.8

On 1 March 2013 11:45, Daniel Hartwig wrote: > On 27 February 2013 15:40, Daniel Hartwig wrote: >> The errors related to BOOST_STATIC_ASSERT are fixed upstream: >> >> >> > > The upstream changeset associated with that includes unrelated changes > t