Issue 125363 - Configure script should have option to specify boost path
Summary: Configure script should have option to specify boost path
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Alias: None
Product: Build Tools
Classification: Code
Component: configure (show other issues)
Version: 4.1.0
Hardware: All All
: P3 Normal (vote)
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: AOO issues mailing list
QA Contact:
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2014-08-06 06:20 UTC by Alexander Pyhalov
Modified: 2014-08-06 23:45 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:
Issue Type: DEFECT
Latest Confirmation in: ---
Developer Difficulty: ---

Attachments
Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this issue.
Description Alexander Pyhalov 2014-08-06 06:20:37 UTC 
Currently configure search for boost headers only in /usr/include. It should have option to allow specifying arbitrary location (e.g. /usr/g++/include).
Comment 1 Andre 2014-08-06 07:19:54 UTC 
configure.in does not seem to specify the base path as /usr/include.  It looks more that all include paths are searched for one that contains boost/shared_ptr.hpp (configure.in:4594).  If that is true then it might be sufficient to adapt the include path.

But making the boost include path configurable would not be a bad idea.
Comment 2 Alexander Pyhalov 2014-08-06 07:29:32 UTC 
If I just add -I/usr/g++/include to CPPFLAGS , this breaks icu build as it finds icu headers in /usr/g++/include (as reported in https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=125371 icu build is not safe in presence of icu on the build system - it tries to use system headers/libraries while building/linking new icu version).
Comment 3 Kay 2014-08-06 23:45:26 UTC 
(In reply to Andre from comment #1)
> configure.in does not seem to specify the base path as /usr/include.  It
> looks more that all include paths are searched for one that contains
> boost/shared_ptr.hpp (configure.in:4594).  If that is true then it might be
> sufficient to adapt the include path.
> 
> But making the boost include path configurable would not be a bad idea.

It would be an excellent idea! I had a lot of problems with using local boost as well and finally gave up on this. I tried adding to the include path but still had problems.

Should we change this one  to confirmed?