From: Stefan Seefeld (seefeld_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-22 18:01:36
Arkadiy Vertleyb wrote:
> "David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote
>>If I want some other arbitrary thing, like some special version of
>>GCC, I install from source just as I would on any *nix system. I've
>>done it many times.
>>Yes, many projects supply precompiled binaries, but if I want
>>something to work reliably in my environment I often find myself
>>building it. In fact, that's the standard way to get a Python
>>installation on *nix.
> I very much doubt that this is typical, especially in the windows world. I,
> for instance, always prefer binaries, if available, since I usually don't
> want to become an expert in a tool, and the standard configuration is good
> enough for me.
> Why not have both?
Isn't that beside the point ? Whether and how to provide binary packages
for boost or any of its components is a packaging issue, and unrelated to
whether boost-the-project should host wave-the-library and wave-the-tool.
Sometimes people seem to forget that the availability of software in
source form is a feature, not an inconvenience.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk