Remove unnecessary boost::system requirement for NuDB

[bthomee]

The NuDB recipe will not build when using Boost 1.89+ as boost::system is no longer there, and has actually not even been needed since Boost 1.69. See also conan-io#28808.

This change, therefore, removes that requirement from NuDB's conanfile.py. Local testing with xrpld shows that the compilation succeeds.

[mathbunnyru]

1. Let's bump boost version as well, to keep the recipe up-to-date and build-able by default.
2. Please, upstream this change

[bthomee]

1. Let's bump boost version as well, to keep the recipe up-to-date and build-able by default.
2. Please, upstream this change

1. I'll do that.
2. There are too many hoops to jump through, with signing developer license and whatnot, so I'm not really interested. If they want my changes they've got to make things easier.

[bthomee]

1. Let's bump boost version as well, to keep the recipe up-to-date and build-able by default.
2. Please, upstream this change

1. I'll do that.
2. There are too many hoops to jump through, with signing developer license and whatnot, so I'm not really interested. If they want my changes they've got to make things easier.

btw regarding 1, NuDB is buildable by default with Boost 1.83, so bumping the version isn't really required. It's just that they kept boost::system as a requirement when that was unnecessary. I bumped it to 1.89 in any case; I can bump it to 1.90 too, which is what we'll use in xrpld.

[mathbunnyru]

1. Let's bump boost version as well, to keep the recipe up-to-date and build-able by default.
2. Please, upstream this change

1. I'll do that.
2. There are too many hoops to jump through, with signing developer license and whatnot, so I'm not really interested. If they want my changes they've got to make things easier.

btw regarding 1, NuDB is buildable by default with Boost 1.83, so bumping the version isn't really required. It's just that they kept boost::system as a requirement when that was unnecessary. I bumped it to 1.89 in any case; I can bump it to 1.90 too, which is what we'll use in xrpld.

1. Let's bump to 1.90, maybe we won't need to force boost version, which is also nice.
2. I would certainly like to decrease the maintenance effort of this repo and make it easier for 3rd party contributors to contribute. To achieve that, we need to gradually upstream our changes.

[bthomee]

1. Let's bump boost version as well, to keep the recipe up-to-date and build-able by default.
2. Please, upstream this change

1. I'll do that.
2. There are too many hoops to jump through, with signing developer license and whatnot, so I'm not really interested. If they want my changes they've got to make things easier.

btw regarding 1, NuDB is buildable by default with Boost 1.83, so bumping the version isn't really required. It's just that they kept boost::system as a requirement when that was unnecessary. I bumped it to 1.89 in any case; I can bump it to 1.90 too, which is what we'll use in xrpld.

1. Let's bump to 1.90, maybe we won't need to force boost version, which is also nice.
2. I would certainly like to decrease the maintenance effort of this repo and make it easier for 3rd party contributors to contribute. To achieve that, we need to gradually upstream our changes.

To upstream these changes, I doubt that the maintainers of CCI would like the Boost version bump though, since it isn't a necessary change.

[mathbunnyru]

1. Let's bump boost version as well, to keep the recipe up-to-date and build-able by default.
2. Please, upstream this change

1. I'll do that.
2. There are too many hoops to jump through, with signing developer license and whatnot, so I'm not really interested. If they want my changes they've got to make things easier.

btw regarding 1, NuDB is buildable by default with Boost 1.83, so bumping the version isn't really required. It's just that they kept boost::system as a requirement when that was unnecessary. I bumped it to 1.89 in any case; I can bump it to 1.90 too, which is what we'll use in xrpld.

1. Let's bump to 1.90, maybe we won't need to force boost version, which is also nice.
2. I would certainly like to decrease the maintenance effort of this repo and make it easier for 3rd party contributors to contribute. To achieve that, we need to gradually upstream our changes.

To upstream these changes, I doubt that the maintainers of CCI would like the Boost version bump though, since it isn't a necessary change.

A few years ago, they easily accepted version changes, given something else changed as well.
Not sure what the policy right now is.