1 |
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 4:45 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò |
2 |
<flameeyes@×××××××××.eu>wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> On 30/10/2012 13:39, Michael Mol wrote: |
5 |
> > In general, I agree...but Boost wasn't intended to be a shared library, |
6 |
> > so there shouldn't be a conflict there. |
7 |
> |
8 |
> But there are shared libraries, and they are not small either. And I'd |
9 |
> rather, say, hunt an RWX section problem (a security problem) with a |
10 |
> single shared library rather than having to hunt it down in a dozen or so. |
11 |
> |
12 |
> Besides, honestly it's not that bad. I think that half the headache that |
13 |
> we're having is due to the slotting more than from boost itself. And the |
14 |
> other half is due to people actually not going to fix their crap because |
15 |
> "oh I can just use the older version" (until a new compiler or C library |
16 |
> comes out). |
17 |
> |
18 |
> I've had to do my share of porting to newer boost — and as I said most |
19 |
> of the headaches have been for the build system to find the object, |
20 |
> rather than anything else. |
21 |
> |
22 |
|
23 |
Thank you. That was enlightening. :) |
24 |
|
25 |
-- |
26 |
:wq |