| 1 |
On 30/10/12 22:49, Michael Mol wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 4:45 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò |
| 3 |
> <flameeyes@×××××××××.eu <mailto:flameeyes@×××××××××.eu>> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> On 30/10/2012 13:39, Michael Mol wrote: |
| 6 |
> > In general, I agree...but Boost wasn't intended to be a shared |
| 7 |
> library, |
| 8 |
> > so there shouldn't be a conflict there. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> But there are shared libraries, and they are not small either. And I'd |
| 11 |
> rather, say, hunt an RWX section problem (a security problem) with a |
| 12 |
> single shared library rather than having to hunt it down in a dozen |
| 13 |
> or so. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Besides, honestly it's not that bad. I think that half the headache that |
| 16 |
> we're having is due to the slotting more than from boost itself. And the |
| 17 |
> other half is due to people actually not going to fix their crap because |
| 18 |
> "oh I can just use the older version" (until a new compiler or C library |
| 19 |
> comes out). |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> I've had to do my share of porting to newer boost — and as I said most |
| 22 |
> of the headaches have been for the build system to find the object, |
| 23 |
> rather than anything else. |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> Thank you. That was enlightening. :) |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Please remove HTML from your e-mail clients settings, at least for this |
| 29 |
mailing list. It's unreadable. |
Archives