Re: [boost] [Booster] Or boost is useless for library developers

Subject: Re: [boost] [Booster] Or boost is useless for library developers
From: Christopher Jefferson (chris_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-05-15 14:32:34

On 15 May 2010, at 18:40, Isidor Zeuner wrote:

>> You can still provide binaries for certain distributions. For instance, Ubuntu-8.04 comes with boost-1.34 and libstdc++.so.6. That won't change.
> 
> I think this is the best direction for solving the ABI compatibility
> issue. Why should a library vendor bother? The library vendor would
> sacrifice code quality if he strives for binary compatibility. A
> distributor, however, can decide to make binary compatibility
> priority, and keep the same boost version for a long time.
> 
> So, if I need long-lasting binary compatibility, I can buy RHEL and be
> sure everything remains stable. But the developers of all the bundled
> software don't need to bother.

There is one big difference between libstdc++ and boost.

libstdc++ fixes bugs in old versions, while keeping the ABI fixed. boost makes almost no attempt to apply bug fixes to old versions.

I'm not claiming it should, but saying that a distributor can deal with keeping everything stable is unreasonable, unless you expect RHEL to keep their own boost distribution, where they backport bug fixes.

Chris