You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The builds of double-conversion/3.0.0 in bintray currently all have gcc and clang versions with a major and a minor version number.
This causes problems when attempting to use the package when the current approach of just the major version number being used to specify the compiler version (as described in conan-io/conan#1214), as pre-built packages will not be found.
The root cause seems to be the .travis.yml file specifying docker images by major and minor version number...
I propose changing the .travis.yml file for double-conversion to be more in line with that for boost_thread (and the bincrafters template). Would a pull request with this change be acceptable?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Indeed this was an issue. This recipe and all the supporting files were created from older templates, and all needed to be updated. I've gone ahead and refreshed all the files, and am pushing the updates through CI now. Stable branch should be done within an hour or two.
Description of Problem, Request, or Question
The builds of double-conversion/3.0.0 in bintray currently all have gcc and clang versions with a major and a minor version number.
This causes problems when attempting to use the package when the current approach of just the major version number being used to specify the compiler version (as described in conan-io/conan#1214), as pre-built packages will not be found.
The root cause seems to be the .travis.yml file specifying docker images by major and minor version number...
If we compare this with the .travis.yml file for (say) boost_thread/1.66.0 the compiler versions are more in line with what we would expect.
I propose changing the .travis.yml file for double-conversion to be more in line with that for boost_thread (and the bincrafters template). Would a pull request with this change be acceptable?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: