Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Thu, 26 May 2016 10:48:32 -0500 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
On 05/26/2016 10:09 AM, Valentin B wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> Recently I've installed boost and boost-devel and some other packages
> related to the boost package.
>
> I then compiled libboost myself with a custom prefix. All the libs are
> located in /data/users/myuser/BOOST/lib.
>
> The program I'm trying to compile requires libboost_date_time-d.a but
> this cannot be find anywhere. This is what the program reports:
>
> $ cmake -DBUILD_PACKAGES=PyBDSM -DUSE_LOG4CPLUS=OFF -DUSE_LOG4CXX=OFF ../..
> -- Loaded compiler defintion file for GNU
> -- Loading global variants file
> -- C compiler: /usr/bin/gcc
> -- CXX compiler: /usr/bin/g++
> -- Fortran compiler: /usr/bin/gfortran
> -- ASM compiler: /usr/bin/gcc
> -- Adding package PyBDSM ...
> -- PyBDSM version: 1.0
> -- PyBDSM dependencies:
> CMake Error at /usr/lib64/boost/Boost.cmake:536 (message):
> The imported target "boost_date_time-static-debug" references the file
>
> "/usr/lib64/lib64/libboost_date_time-d.a"
>
> but this file does not exist. Possible reasons include:
>
> * The file was deleted, renamed, or moved to another location.
>
> * An install or uninstall procedure did not complete successfully.
>
> * The installation package was faulty and contained
>
> "/usr/lib64/boost/Boost.cmake"
>
> but not all the files it references.
>
> Call Stack (most recent call first):
> /usr/lib64/boost/BoostConfig.cmake:28 (include)
> /usr/share/cmake/Modules/FindBoost.cmake:177 (find_package)
> CMake/FindBoost.cmake:62 (include)
> CMake/LofarFindPackage.cmake:58 (find_package)
> CEP/PyBDSM/CMakeLists.txt:7 (lofar_find_package)
>
>
> Is there something wrong with a symlink that is not been created
> properly during installation ?
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
What boost packages are currently installed?
rpm -qa \*boost\*
The .a I believe is provided by boost-static (at least in SL7). Only the
.so are in boost-date-time.
If you compiled your own libboost, is there a reason you are still
compiling against the RPM packaged version? I'm a bit confused...
|
|
|