Jarl Friis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
All true. Unfortunately, 2.96 was released by RedHat with one popular version of Linux, which makes it (in many peoples' eyes) an important compiler to support anyway.
I will in line with the announcement suggest that any support needed for or related to this particular gcc version should be redirected to the supplier of the compiler (i.e. redhat).
That's a very nice way to avoid extra work for Boost library developers which they shouldn't have to do in the first place, but since RedHat isn't actually going to do anything for users, leaves them in the cold.
I don't think we support beta versions of compilers, so why should we support a version of a compiler that its creators (AFAIK) don't even support? For example, if a Boost incompatibility is the fault of the GCC 2.96 complier, are we supposed to figure out the internal difficulties and corrections/workarounds that even GCC.org won't bother with?
Anyway, support for certain compiler versions seem to fade as new versions are released (e.g. we don't really support CodeWarrior Pro 5.x or MSVC++ 5.x). Do we even support GCC 2.95 that much? The user can resolve the problem by downloading the 2.95 or 3.x versions, which gains the user a lot more support, especially if the resolution to a Boost incompatibility is beyond our ability to fix (like a compiler patch).
I am noticing a theme in your postings today: you seem remarkably unsympathetic to anyone who hasn't made what you consider to be the "right" choice of software systems. At Boost we *generally* try not to hold these kinds of missteps against our users, because we're more interested in seeing our software widely used than in avoiding the hassles of platform dependencies; I don't think you're going to change that culture with a few postings (at least I hope not)!
Daryle
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
