build: set minimum required Boost to 1.64.0 #22320

1. 
   fanquake commented at 7:48 am on June 23, 2021: member

   Setting a newer minimum required Boost means we can remove the awkward header / compile check for Boost Process.

   If we don’t do this, we should at-least make Boost Process being missing no longer a failure, otherwise anyone building using Boost < 1.64.0 would have to pass --disable-external-signer as well.

   The only system I can see that is affected here, (doesn’t have new enough system packages) is Debian Oldstable. However, anyone compiling there, can use depends. They can also no-longer use the system GCC (6.0), and I’d assume would be using Clang 7, which would be the newest compiler available to them. It’s extended, LTS support also end in 1 year from now, so anyone still using it should be considering upgrading.

   Debian Buster (Stable) has 1.67+, Ubuntu Bionic has 1.65+, any of the BSDs, recent Fedora, macOS etc all also have well and truly new enough Boost versions available.

   I think this is something we should just do for 22.0. If not, definitely for 23.0.

   Fixes #22319. Compiling Bitcoin Core should work, as windows.h will be included. Alternative to #22294. Would also close #22269. #19128 could be re-opened.

2. fanquake added the label Build system on Jun 23, 2021
3. build: set minimum required Boost to 1.64.0 2bf211696b
4. build: remove workaround for Boost and std::atomic df2c933217
5. build: remove check for Boost Process header

   Now that we require Boost 1.64.0+, Boost Process will be available.

   957f358427
6. fanquake force-pushed on Jun 23, 2021
7. 
   MarcoFalke commented at 8:07 am on June 23, 2021: member

   Concept ACK
8. 
   hebasto commented at 10:32 am on June 23, 2021: member

   Concept ACK.
9. 
   hebasto commented at 11:09 am on June 23, 2021: member

   Boost Process was introduced in 1.64. Debian stretch has boost 1.62, other main distros have 1.65+, right?

   If so, will we have any benefit of bumping boost version to 1.65 (instead of 1.64)?

10. 
    fanquake commented at 11:33 am on June 23, 2021: member

    If so, will we have any benefit of bumping boost version to 1.65 (instead of 1.64)?

    The only benefit might be being able to take advantage of any new Boost Test related features. However it doesn’t look like there is anything substantial in that regard.

11. 
    DrahtBot commented at 3:33 pm on June 23, 2021: member

    The following sections might be updated with supplementary metadata relevant to reviewers and maintainers.

    Conflicts

    Reviewers, this pull request conflicts with the following ones:

    • #22294 by laanwj
    • #20744 by fanquake
    • #19460 by ryanofsky
    • #10102 by ryanofsky

    If you consider this pull request important, please also help to review the conflicting pull requests. Ideally, start with the one that should be merged first.

12. 
    laanwj commented at 8:43 am on June 24, 2021: member

    Tested ACK 957f3584277d33b44b9f1618142f743e4083eb5d that this fixes #22269. No opinion on versions.
13. 
    MarcoFalke commented at 8:55 am on June 24, 2021: member

    review ACK 957f3584277d33b44b9f1618142f743e4083eb5d

    didn’t test

14. MarcoFalke added this to the milestone 22.0 on Jun 24, 2021
15. fanquake merged this on Jun 24, 2021
16. fanquake closed this on Jun 24, 2021

    ---

17. fanquake deleted the branch on Jun 24, 2021
18. sidhujag referenced this in commit 82f2101bf7 on Jun 24, 2021
19. 
    luke-jr commented at 0:42 am on June 27, 2021: member

    Please check at least RHEL next time. For reference, looks like it’s got 1.66 so should be fine here.
20. 
    fanquake commented at 2:14 am on June 28, 2021: member

    Please check at least RHEL next time. For reference, looks like it’s got 1.66 so should be fine here.

    This was somewhat covered by the fact that RHEL is based off a semi-recent Fedora. It would be fine in any case, because if it had a too-old version of Boost, anyone wanting to compile on that system can use depends.

21. fanquake deleted a comment on Oct 30, 2021
22. fanquake deleted a comment on Oct 30, 2021
23. fanquake referenced this in commit 7efc628539 on Oct 30, 2021
24. sidhujag referenced this in commit 7704bb722b on Oct 30, 2021
25. gwillen referenced this in commit 91ecc65c31 on Jun 1, 2022
26. DrahtBot locked this on Oct 30, 2022

Contributors
fanquake MarcoFalke hebasto DrahtBot laanwj luke-jr

Labels
Build system

Milestone
22.0