Richard Heck wrote: > Lars Gullik Bj??nnes wrote: >> Pavel Sanda <sa...@lyx.org> writes: >> >> | Lars Gullik Bj?nnes wrote: >> >>>> In Fedora 11 the errors might probably be fixed by usinging a more up to >>>> date boost (1.38 f.ex.) and --without-included-boost. For all others >>>> stuck with an older boost no such luck. So I have a Q: Would you like me >>>> to upgrade the included boost to boost 1.38? >>>> >> | the other possibility is that we evetually get rid of boost from our >> sources >> | as discussed few times ago. >> >> Right... I forgot... Qt app now. >> >> I think I'll just go and hide beneath my rock again ;-) >> >> > Well, as far as I know, we're not that close to removing boost. A quick > grep still turns up a lot. So something needs doing. I'll be on fc10 in a > week or so.
i thought the main reason for including boost in our tree was that we used some nifty new features and it was not usuall that linux distributions have such a new version. but this is long time ago, so this reason no more holds. afaik all changes to boost are just squashing compiler warnings, no bug fixing etc. so i wonder whats the point of including it in our sources. we could only bump requirement and let this job on the shoulders of distro mantainers. ? pavel
