Boost logo

Boost Users :

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] [boost] Making the Windows binaries 'official'
From: Leon Mlakar (leon_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-08-15 13:30:31

On 15.08.2015 14:28, Tom Kent wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 8:34 PM, Glen Fernandes
> <glen.fernandes_at_[hidden] <mailto:glen.fernandes_at_[hidden]>> wrote:
> 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).
> >
> > Thoughts?
> 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.
> This is basically how it is now....if people don't think it is
> necessary we can stick with this. However, I think it would be more
> professional if we change, hence my e-mail to the list.

As an occasional user of Boost libraries on windows (and not as
proficient in visual environments) I'm always grateful to be able to
fetch the pre-built bundle and unzip/install it, without needing to go
through the hassle with unfamiliar environment. So from my perspective a
big thumbs up (or Like, as it is called nowadays) for supporting my
laziness and
making them more the integral part of the release.
> SourceForge raises the usual concern: Can you trust a Windows
> executable or DLL that you get from
> <> anymore?
> The .7z file and installers are SHA-256 hashed, and the list of hashes
> is signed with my GPG key. That said, I think we need to start
> planning an alternative to sourceforge for releases. It is not clear
> to me that it will still be around in a few years. That's a whole
> different thread though.
> 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.
> I provide whatever bjam specifies with --build-type=complete. The
> bigger question is external libraries. I link with zlib, and bzip2 but
> not MPI for instance. I have had users ask for different version
> numbers of those libraries, but my answer is then that you're on your
> own for building anything else. These kind of questions are only
> relevant to far less than 1% of the people who download the binaries.
If I had a need to dig deep enough to require special builds, building
Boost from sources with my specific compile/link options would not be a
big deal. Standard set of variants as available today is perfectly
adequate for quick and simple deployment.



Boost-users list run by williamkempf at, kalb at, bjorn.karlsson at, gregod at, wekempf at