[boost] Re: 1.31.0 regressions

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-02-17 16:03:11

Russell Hind <rhind_at_[hidden]> writes:

> David Abrahams wrote:
>> I expect that dropping vc6 support in Boost.Python in the next
>> couple
>> of years would significantly reduce its audience, so I can't justify
>> it, (maybe not until Python's standard Windows distribution drops VC6
>> also).  That fact has caused me to implement vc6 support in other
>> libraries that Boost.Python depends on.  Thereafter, if the library
>> breaks, it's a regression.  It's viral :(
>> 
>
> Yes, but we have a very functional set of libraries in boost-1.30.2
> and boost-1.31.0 so why not say older compilers are stuck to using
> these versions of boost?  We're not saying they can't use boost, just
> not the latest version?

Might be a good idea.  I think I'd like to continue to support vc6 at
least on the 1.31.x branch, particularly because last-minute changes
in the graph library broke Boost.Python on vc6 for 1.31.0

What would we do about Borland, which is in some ways more broken than
vc6?  They don't ship a compiler I wouldn't consider broken.  What
about GCC 2.9Xes, which are standard equipment on some widely-used
Linux distros?  Way less broken than either of those two compilers,
but still way out-of-date...

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com