On 05/26/2016 10:48 AM, Mark Stodola wrote: > 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... Also may be relevant: https://public.kitware.com/Bug/view.php?id=15270