From: Michael Fawcett (michael.fawcett_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-05-03 13:38:37
On 5/3/07, Anthony Williams <anthony_w.geo_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Here I don't understand. Suppose Boost release X contains library A version
> 1.4, and library B version 1.23, and library A depends on library B. The
> developer of library B then releases a new version (1.24), and the author of
> library A doesn't. The next Boost release (Y) comes along, and now library A
> is no longer part of the Boost release? That strikes me as a bad plan --- the
> contents of Boost will vary from release to release as developers update their
> libraries at different rates.
> As an alternative, how about this: if library A depends on version xyz of
> library B, then library B is pinned at version xyz for Boost releases until
> library A is updated. If library A is not updated for n consecutive Boost
> releases, library A is dropped from Boost as unmaintained.
> How about this, also: a library developer can only release their library if it
> is built against the latest released version of all its dependent
> libraries. That way if a core library is updated, all other libraries will
> have to use the new version before they can release.
Didn't Beman's proposal address most or all of these issues?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk