On Sat, 2013-03-09 at 09:24 +0000, Fraser Adams wrote: > ... > I'm surprised that you are surprised. I'd have thought that the place > most people first look for Qpid downloads is: > > http://qpid.apache.org/download.html > > and that only actually mentions Fedora packages
Hmm, interesting, when I want to install something (on either fedora or ubuntu/debian) the first thing I'd do would be apt-get/yum. So obviously I assume that everyone else is the same. I thought there were official qpid packages now for ubuntu/debian if not then obviously you will end up compiling from source and also it may not be as up to date as you;d like too. > ... > Then there's the endless fun relating to boost dependencies - plenty of > systems that use Qpid also have boost deployed for other reasons and > it's not notorious for having great interoperability between different > versions. I definitely know of people having to juggle things due to boost. Yes, boost dependencies are a real pain and if our users actually pointed out how much of a pain we could probably prioritise mitigating this completely now. For the Unix port of qpid we only need one boost library (program_options) linked in and this is what forces the dependency problems. Most of our us of boost is header file code only, and even a large part of that is now in the standard library. This means that there would be no installed dependency on boost, but further it would be possible (although it's not clear how desirable) to fix a version of boost and copy the needed header files into our tree and avoid any external dependency. boost even has a utility to do this - bcp. Andrew --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
