Bo Peng wrote: > On 7/21/06, Jose' Matos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Friday 21 July 2006 16:00, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: >> > I belive we should just decide that we will support system boost from >> > 1.34 and further on... (and then we can also remove boost from our >> > sources.) >> >> I like this option. > > Then we should follow big distributions closely. For example, we > should make both lyx.1.4.x and 1.5.x work with cygwin/boost 1.33.1.
1.4 works IIRC perfectly with boost 1.33. the only reason why an external boost is not officially supported are disabled exceptions, but I believe that 1.4 would work with an external 1.33 boost if that is compiled with disabled exceptions. > Also, I am told that people like to tweak included boost a little bit > for, for example, newer version of compilers. If they want to tweak boost they can as well tweak a local version. > Currently, scons check *exact* version number of system boost and > requires 1.32 for 1.4.x and 1.33.1 for 1.5.x. Included boost will be > used automatically if system boost can not be used. A system-only > boost handling sounds dangerous to me. System boost can also mean a locally installed boost instead of the distribution version. IMO boost is now so well known that we don't need to distribute our own copy anymore. And of course we should make LyX compatible to any boost version that does not have bugs that make LyX unusable. As I understand Lars, that would be 1.34. In the future when newer version are released we should stay compatible with 1.34 as long as that makes sense. > (Does boost have a good > reputation of backward compatibility?) Depends. Some boost libraries are good at that, others not. Georg
