Re: [boost] Moving away from SourceForge

Subject: Re: [boost] Moving away from SourceForge
From: Tom Kent (lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-01-26 07:55:24

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 2:43 AM, Olaf van der Spek <ml_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 4:21 AM, Tom Kent <lists_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 3:42 PM, Diego Rodriguez-Losada <
> > diego.rlosada_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> >
> > > Just a question (from my ignorance), why the 1.5Gb msvc-all archive?
> > > The download stats clearly show a high preference for specific
> > installers,
> > > maybe that one could be dropped without much impact.
> > >
> > >
> > There are lots of use cases where users will need multiple different
> > versions of the libraries. Commonly, both the 32 and 64 bit version of a
> > single visual studio type. However, if you are building a library for
> > distribution, you will probably want to support multiple versions of
> visual
> > studio with your library, so you'll need the boost libraries for all
> those.
> >
> > The lack of a package that supported all the different versions is what
> > originally drove me to start volunteering to do the windows builds...I'd
> > really like to see it stick around :-)
>
>
> Why is building from source not an option?

It is definitely an option, I often recommend it to people because it isn't
very hard (a couple extra dependencies and a new tool to learn, but I'm not
being sarcastic when I say it isn't hard). However that isn't how windows
development often happens. I know that where I work, we have static libs
pre-built for all our dependencies. Then when a developer makes a build of
the product, they just link in all those dependencies.

Tom