Re: [boost] Re: 1.31.0 regressions

From: Martin Wille (mw8329_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-02-17 16:35:41

David Abrahams wrote:
> Russell Hind <rhind_at_[hidden]> writes:

[...]

>>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 but still way out-of-date...

I think most distros finally switched to gcc 3.
I also think dropping gcc 2.9x support would hit
fewer developers than dropping VC6 support (mostly
due to the fact that gcc 3 has been around for
some time). However, I didn't conduct a survey.

I think it would be reasonable not to support
gcc 2.9x in future Boost releases.

Regards,
m