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