From: David Abrahams (david.abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-02-25 20:07:23
----- Original Message -----
From: "Braden McDaniel" <braden_at_[hidden]>
> > Okay, but (I realize I may have missed something, but) AFAICT the
> > configure/install approach proposed so far wouldn't address this issue.
> > Since we *do* break source compatibility from time-to-time (and binary
> > compatibility often) and we explicitly *don't* want to prevent
> > from improving the design of their libraries in ways that break this
> > compatibility, I don't see that a configure/install system would help
> > users.
> I don't follow you. How do you think "make install" impinges upon Boost
> developers' freedom to break source and binary compatibility in their
It doesn't, in any way. However, at least as I understand it, you want to
tell users to get the boost distribution separately and configure/install it
so you don't have to include it in your own distribution. Since we're
constantly breaking binary compatibility and sometimes breaking source
compatibility it seems to me that there's the very real possibility that the
boost installation users get will be incompatible with whatever you're
shipping. Avoiding that problem without including boost in your own
distribution would impinge on boost developers' freedom.
> > It seems like an enormous waste of everyone's time to push for others
> > to adopt an approach that won't solve your problems.
> Right. We're spending all this energy on something that would be of no
> help. A little credit, please?
Sorry, anyone can overlook something important. Maybe this time it's me.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk