Make it possible to build against system boost on Linux

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Hi there,

I'm trying to package bitfighter for Mageia Cauldron (the development version 
of the incoming Mageia 5). I had troubles with version 019c (namely the music/ 
and scripts/ folders would be searched for in ~/.bitfighter instead of 
LINUX_DATA_DIR), so I went on with the master branch, waiting impatiently for 
the next release. I'm able to get a 100% working package with the master branch.

Now to the enhancement request: the current cmake build system doesn't let the 
user build bitfighter against system boost, even though there have been some 
steps towards this.

Two issues:

* With boost 1.55.0 and cmake 2.8.12.2 the find_package(Boost) function returns 
variables prefixed "Boost_" and not "BOOST_" as assumed, so the 
find_with_fallback(Boost BOOST boost) call fails (if checks for the existence 
of BOOST_FOUND).

* Even when boost is found on the system, it is included in 
master/MasterServerConnection.cpp as " #include "../boost/boost/shared_ptr.hpp" 
", so it's still the in-tree version which is used.

The attached patch fixes both issues (but it could be that earlier version of 
boost/cmake had been prefixed with "BOOST_", so maybe both prefixes should be 
supported).

I tested building bitfighter with my patch both with system boost and with 
in-tree boost.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by rverschelde on 26 Jun 2014 at 5:50

Attachments:

• bitfighter-020-mga-system-boost.patch

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Hi, and thanks!

I am currently working through several build system issues related to static 
libraries.  When I'm done, I'll merge in your changes.  I think I'll probably 
end up supporting both 'Boost_' and 'BOOST_'

As for 019c, what specific issues do you have?  I don't expect 020 to be out 
soon because many of us developers are busy right now for the Summer.  Feel 
free to stop by the IRC channel #bitfighter on freenode if you want to talk 
about anything in depth.

Original comment by buckyballreaction on 28 Jun 2014 at 1:53

• Changed state: Accepted
• Added labels: Type-Defect
• Removed labels: Type-Enhancement

[GoogleCodeExporter]

I opened issue 445 about my issue with version 019c.

Original comment by rverschelde on 28 Jun 2014 at 7:28

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Your patch was the proper fix.  Thanks!

Done in re361d388e6dc and r05689ed3e48e

Original comment by buckyballreaction on 28 Jun 2014 at 9:06

• Changed state: Fixed