Subject: Re: [boost] Making the Windows binaries 'official'
From: Glen Fernandes (glen.fernandes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-08-14 21:34:42
On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 9:03 PM, Tom Kent wrote:
> Is this something the community would be in favor of? I know that many of
> the people on these lists don't use windows and if they do are generally
> capable of building the windows binaries themselves, however there is a
> large group out there that prefers to just get the installer for them (like
> they do for other projects like Qt, wxWidgets, etc).
While I have not been a MSVC user for a while now: I think it's a good
thing for our VC users that binaries are available to them.
Is (1) necessary? I was under the impression binaries becoming
available a few days after a source release is not uncommon.
SourceForge raises the usual concern: Can you trust a Windows
executable or DLL that you get from sourceforge.net anymore?
Also, how do you cater to users who want variants that you're not
providing? i.e. Already you probably have Debug/Release *
32-bit/64-bit * MT/MD/MTd/MDd * LIB/DLL (per 6 compiler versions).
What happens if someone wants /Gz or /Gv instead of /Gd etc.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk