Re: Dropping C++03 support (again)

From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2023-02-04 13:23:43

Andrey Semashev wrote:
> Also, I suggest we name the first Boost version that requires C++11 as Boost
> 2.0 and the C++03-compatible releases continue to be 1.x. The compiled
> binaries for 2.x should be named differently from 1.x, i.e. add a new tag in 2.x
> binaries.

This will be a much bigger change that will break _a lot_ more things than just
C++03, so I'm not sure how enthusiastic I am about it.

> This will make it easier for downstream consumers to ship 2.x and 1.x
> releases side by side, should it be needed. Point releases may not be
> convenient for downstream since, for example, Debian dev packages for Boost
> are named as libboost-math1.74-dev (no point version).

As long as the point releases are kept binary compatible, packagers can still
replace 1.82.0 with 1.82.1 using their own versioning mechanism.

https://ubuntu.pkgs.org/22.04/ubuntu-universe-amd64/libboost-math1.74-dev_1.74.0-14ubuntu3_amd64.deb.html