Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

rhel/centos support #150

Closed
wants to merge 3 commits into from
Closed

rhel/centos support #150

wants to merge 3 commits into from

Conversation

rurban
Copy link

@rurban rurban commented Apr 11, 2012

  1. define HAVE_BSWAP_64 for byteorder.h and bswap_64 macros on redhat and centos (DONE)
  2. pipe2 O_CLOEXEC undefined on centos (DONE)
  3. boost/typeof/typeof.hpp missing on boost-devel-1.33.1-15.el5.i386 (DONE)

@ryansch
Copy link

ryansch commented Apr 11, 2012

Just hit my head on this. Waiting with baited breath.

Reini Urban added 3 commits April 11, 2012 13:20
define HAVE_BSWAP_64 for byteorder.h and bswap_64 macros on redhat and centos
O_CLOEXEC is defined in fcntl.h
Older rhel kernels do not support O_CLOEXEC. undef HAVE_PIPE2 then.
AC_CHECK_HEADER([boost/typeof/typeof.hpp] ...
unfortunately does not use the boost specific CXXFLAGS
@rurban
Copy link
Author

rurban commented Apr 11, 2012

Tested okay, even with old boost (1.33) in /usr/include and new boost (1.34) in /usr/local/include

@rurban rurban closed this Apr 11, 2012
@rurban rurban reopened this Apr 11, 2012
@ryansch
Copy link

ryansch commented Apr 12, 2012

I was able to build an rpm on a stock amazon linux AMI from the fedora spec. Thanks!

@mitchblank
Copy link

Ah, I separately hit the boost 1.34 thing and opened issue #154 on that before I saw this pull request.

It looks like I just duplicated the work you did getting it to compile on a CentOS box.. your byteorder changes are better than the hacks I did though so no need for me to submit those.

@ryansch
Copy link

ryansch commented Apr 13, 2012

@rurban This pull request has gotten messy with all the other activity on your master branch. You probably want to open a new one with a dedicated topic branch.

@rurban
Copy link
Author

rurban commented Apr 13, 2012

see new pull request #2 (seperate branch, and rebased)

@rurban rurban closed this Apr 13, 2012
@ryansch
Copy link

ryansch commented Apr 13, 2012

See #171

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants