I also had some trouble with Boost 1.50, didn't feel like tracking it down, so I just reverted back to 1.49 in order to get back on track to what I was really trying to accomplish. I think 1.51 is already in beta, so I figured it was pointless to try debugging 1.50.
90% of my boost use is to get features that are (finally) in C++11, either because they weren't in the standard yet, or now that they are, because I can't count on everybody using a sufficiently new enough compiler. On Aug 19, 2012, at 9:31 AM, Andrew Harvey wrote: > Boost 1.49 here. > > I have tried using Boost 1.50 elsewhere (compiling against Alembic) > but it seems the devs have rearranged things somewhat. Not sure if > this applies to OpenEXR, but Alembic previously just required > boost-threads. It now requires boost-system too under 1.50 (relates to > exceptions and error handling, if I recall correctly.) > > - Andrew > > > On 19 August 2012 04:54, bo.schwarzst...@gmail.com > <bo.schwarzst...@gmail.com> wrote: >> boost 1.42 or 1.46, used by Alembic and Houdini 12. >> >> From: Richard Addison-Wood >> Date: 2012-08-18 12:32 >> To: Piotr Stanczyk >> CC: openexr-devel@nongnu.org >> Subject: Re: [Openexr-devel] boost versions >> Personally, I would recommend avoiding any dependencies on boost. >> >> On 18/08/12 11:41 AM, Piotr Stanczyk wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> Out of interest, what boost version are people using most commonly? Anyone >> hitting the dizzy heights of 1.50? >> >> Cheers, >> >> Piotr >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Openexr-devel mailing list >> Openexr-devel@nongnu.org >> https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/openexr-devel >> > > _______________________________________________ > Openexr-devel mailing list > Openexr-devel@nongnu.org > https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/openexr-devel -- Larry Gritz l...@larrygritz.com _______________________________________________ Openexr-devel mailing list Openexr-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/openexr-devel
