Boost logo

Boost :

From: Dylan Nicholson (dylan_nicholson_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-02-25 20:44:58

 --- David Abrahams <david.abrahams_at_[hidden]> wrote: >
> ----- Original Message -----
> 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 that was the way we wanted to go (and other
libraries do use this approach), we would have to
maintain "release" versions, whereby every time a
source-level incompatibility was introduced into the
library the previous version remains available for
download from Hopefully however such
incompatibilities would be rare, although avoiding
cruft build-up is one thing worth aiming for with
something like boost.
I'm not convinced we need to worry about supplying
binary versions, I assume we are talking about user
source distributions anyway (otherwise the library
should already be linked in). Given probably most of
boost is in header files, the binary component would
be minimal anyway.

Dylan - Yahoo! Movies
- Vote for your nominees in our online Oscars pool.

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at