On 30/10/12 22:49, Michael Mol wrote:
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 4:45 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò <flamee...@flameeyes.eu <mailto:flamee...@flameeyes.eu>> 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. :)
Please remove HTML from your e-mail clients settings, at least for this mailing list. It's unreadable.
