From: Jurko GospodnetiÄ (jurko.gospodnetic_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-10-23 15:09:44
> The topic of what gets built "out of the box" came up again, this time
> on IRC. Some background... In the past we have gone the route of
> building as much as possible when users do the manual Boost
> build+install. That approach has gotten us a rather distressing
> reputation of building being a real pain, mostly because it takes a long
> time to build.
Ok, it does take about 10-15 minutes to build everything on our
machines here (Windows XP). But I personally like the simple way of
We use the debug libraries mostly for development as it gets us
better insight (e.g. watches) when tracking down bugs (e.g. passed
incorrect ponters or references) detected somewhere deep inside boost code.
Also different projects of ours use rather different variants of
boost (e.g. static/shared runtime) and we never had a problem linking to
correct libraries (autolink functionality on windows rocks :-)) and on
Linux it was never a problem listing the correct libraries for different
build options using boost.build :-))) ).
Anyway... I would really hate it if someone decided to change the
name mangling for different build types or if it became difficult to
tell boost build to 'build all variants as it did before by default'.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk