August 2024 - Boost - lists.stage.boost.cppalliance.org

Two mqtt libraries
by Robert Ramey 03 Oct '24

03 Oct '24

I've been contacted by my friend and sometime collaborator Takatoshi Kondo regarding his submission of a boost library: https://github.com/redboltz/async_mqtt. It has received two endorsements. He has asked me to be review manager and I'm inclined to accept this request as he was very helpful to me during the refinement of the boost serialization library. There is also mqtt client library that is proposed to the Boost. https://github.com/mireo/async-mqtt5 It also has endorsements and a review manager. A cursory examination of the git hub pages suggest considerable overlap between the two submissions. In general, boost has discouraged the acceptance of multiple libraries with this much overlap - and for good reason. An accepted library often becomes the canonical implementation in large parts of the C++ world. Having two high quality libraries that do almost the same thing is not where we would like to be. I would like to propose that we review both libraries simultaneously in order to try to reach a consensus as to which, if either we want to accept. I know this is a difficult task, but I think it is important that we do this. It's going to be tough to reject a well written library because a better one has been accepted. But it would be worse to reject a well written library merely because another one was submitted first. Normally I don't participate as a review manager as I'm pretty bogged down in Boost stuff as it is. But I'm willing to make an exception in this case due to the importance of this case and my strong personal ties to Takatoshi. BTW - who is the review wizard these days? I presume that he will be the one making the decision about this. Robert Ramey

10 17

Boost Asset Stewardship Review begins 09/03 (Updated)
by Glen Fernandes 18 Sep '24

18 Sep '24

Update: The Boost Foundation proposal mentioned in the original announcement has been published. The Boost Foundation proposal is attached to this email: BoostFoundationStewardshipProposal.pdf A link to the above will also be available in the review commencement email that will be posted on September 3rd. For reference, the review schedule is: https://www.boost.org/community/review_schedule.html The C++ Alliance submitted the following proposal: https://cppalliance.org/pdf/Fiscal-Sponsorship-Proposal.pdf The original announcement email included an attachment of the above: https://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2024/08/257569.php - Glen

19 47

Domain Transfer Update
by Kristen Shaker 13 Sep '24

13 Sep '24

Hello, I wanted to give everyone an update regarding what is happening with the boost.org domain. We are working with the lawyer representing the Dawes estate to transfer control. However, Beman Dawes was the only one with the credentials, and the transfer process without them is onerous. It may take many months. We intend to continue to provide updates. Warm Regards, Kristen

10 11

Boost Asset Stewardship Review begins 09/03
by Glen Fernandes 05 Sep '24

05 Sep '24

Everyone, The formal review for the stewardship of Boost assets begins next week, September 3rd. For reference, the review schedule is: https://www.boost.org/community/review_schedule.html The C++ Alliance submitted the following proposal: https://cppalliance.org/pdf/Fiscal-Sponsorship-Proposal.pdf Also attached to this email as: CplusplusAllianceFiscalSponsorshipProposal.pdf The Boost Foundation has prepared a proposal for the community's consideration that is waiting on review from all board members and will be posted before the end of day tomorrow (08/30, by 5pm EST). A follow up email will be posted when it is available so that it has visibility on the Boost developers list and the Announcement list. The review, like our C++ library formal reviews, is open to everyone to participate. The official review start announcement email next week will detail the process for participation. Thank you, - Glen

5 8

[boost.cobalt] Cobalt not building with b2 on Windows
by Andreas Weis 02 Sep '24

02 Sep '24

Hi everyone, It's my understanding that Cobalt is *not* a header-only library, yet it seems that it is not built as part of the b2 build. I'm building Boost with b2 on Windows (MSVC 2022, version 19.41) and it seems that Cobalt is not being built properly. I am using the following command line: b2 --toolset=msvc-14.3 --build-type=complete architecture=x86 address-model=64 --stagedir=stage -j 8 As far as I can tell, this works correctly for all libraries except Cobalt. While b2 does list cobalt as part of the "Component configuration" listing in the output: - atomic : building - charconv : building - chrono : building - cobalt : building [...] But I get neither binaries nor a folder cmake/boost_cobalt* with this. It also seems that the Cobalt binaries are not part of the distribution at https://sourceforge.net/projects/boost/files/boost-binaries/. Am I doing something wrong? Is Cobalt supposed to be part of the b2 build or is there another way to consume the non-header-only parts of the library? Best regards, Andreas

3 3

Boost.Compute broken in 1.86.0 because of UUID changes, 1.86.1?
by Peter Dimov 30 Aug '24

30 Aug '24

Because Boost.Compute (boost/compute/detail/sha1.hpp) uses an implementation detail of Boost.UUID (boost/uuid/detail/sha1.hpp), and because I changed the implementation to fix an endianness issue, <boost/compute.hpp> now causes a compile error in 1.86.0, as reported in https://github.com/boostorg/uuid/issues/166 https://github.com/boostorg/compute/pull/887 https://github.com/boostorg/compute/pull/888 https://github.com/boostorg/compute/issues/889 Users are demanding we issue a point release to fix this. It will have to include https://github.com/boostorg/compute/pull/887 and https://github.com/boostorg/compute/pull/893 What do release managers think?

10 14

Inter pod communication using shared memory
by Murali Bathina 30 Aug '24

30 Aug '24

Hi all, Is Boost supports inter pod communication using shared memory or other ways like boost interprocess communication. Looking inputs on this. Regards, Murali ________________________________ This e-mail message may contain confidential or proprietary information of Mavenir Systems, Inc. or its affiliates and is intended solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you are hereby notified that any review, use or distribution of this information is absolutely prohibited and we request that you delete all copies in your control and contact us by e-mailing to security(a)mavenir.com. This message contains the views of its author and may not necessarily reflect the views of Mavenir Systems, Inc. or its affiliates, who employ systems to monitor email messages, but make no representation that such messages are authorized, secure, uncompromised, or free from computer viruses, malware, or other defects. Thank You

4 6

glibc version mismatches in CI
by Jeff Trull 28 Aug '24

28 Aug '24

Hi folks, While reviewing the Modular Boost changes for Wave I noticed that our CI is now failing - and we're not alone in this. It looks like the version of glibc in some of the old Ubuntu containers, which are required to compile against old versions of gcc, is incompatible with the Node executable that runs actions/checkout@v2 (and 3 and 4). You might see errors like this: /__e/node20/bin/node: /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6: version `GLIBC_2.28' not found (required by /__e/node20/bin/node) The Github blog discusses the change here <https://github.blog/changelog/2024-03-07-github-actions-all-actions-will-ru…> At least one brave pioneer, Andrey Semashev, has made updates to make CI green again in a handful of libraries, but I haven't seen it discussed on the list. Is there a fix other than "rewrite using manual checkout"? I managed to implement the workaround described in the blog post by adding these lines close to the top of ci.yml: env: ACTIONS_ALLOW_USE_UNSECURE_NODE_VERSION: true Though it seems unwise to rely on in the long run. Best, Jeff

5 5

Governance review
by David Sankel 26 Aug '24

26 Aug '24

The Boost Foundation approved the following motion relating to using the library review process for the governance/fiscal entity decision with 8 in favor and 0 against. MOTION: Support handling the governance question with the following process recommendations: - There should be a period (maybe a month) with a request for proposals. - These proposals should answer questions such as “What problems is this organizational change attempting to solve? How is this in line with Boost’s mission and values? What will the impact be for current volunteers? How does this proposal meet the changing needs of the Boost and wider C++ communities? What risks are there with this approach and how can they be mitigated? How will the greater C++ community react to this development?” - Proposal writers are encouraged to publish their proposals early and use feedback to refine them until the official review period is underway. - The proposals should be specific about how expenses will be financed, how decisions are made, and how decision makers will be put in place. - For fiscal entities, structure and bylaws should be stated. - All proposals should be reviewed during the same period. - The greater C++ community should be aware and invited to participate in the discussion. - The review period should be 20 days. - We want this to be a civil discussion and encourage everyone to make this a reality. Presume that others in the discussion are acting in good faith. -- David

6 7

Request for information regarding the Boost Foundation
by Robert Ramey 26 Aug '24

26 Aug '24

checking the Boost Foundation website I find some information such as https://sites.google.com/boost.org/boost-foundation/contact which lists the board of directors. Is there more complete information such as: a) link to legal documents such as articles of incorporation, 501(c)3 non-profit paperwork etc? b) Bylaws which among other things would describe the procedure for selection of members of the board, listing what the powers of the board are, etc. c) financial statements for recent years d) List of financial oblications that the foundation has committed to e) any other useful stuff Robert Ramey

3 2