"Steve M. Robbins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I see some value in the granularity of having each shared lib live on
> its own: a system that needs only Boost.Regexp doesn't have to pay the
> disk space for also having Boost.Python. But maybe it's not so
> important. Does anyone care?
Absolut
On Mon, May 05, 2008 at 06:16:04PM +0200, Domenico Andreoli wrote:
> On Sat, May 03, 2008 at 12:15:39AM -0500, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
> > My headache now is that there are 13 -dev packages in Boost. One
> > (libboost1.35-dev) contains 60+ header-only libraries, while the
> > others each contain
On Sat, May 03, 2008 at 12:15:39AM -0500, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 01:14:45PM +0200, Domenico Andreoli wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 12:22:24AM -0500, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
> > >
> > > In contrast, the alternative strategy of having all the libfoo-dev
> > > (1.34.1)
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 01:14:45PM +0200, Domenico Andreoli wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 12:22:24AM -0500, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
> >
> > In contrast, the alternative strategy of having all the libfoo-dev
> > (1.34.1) packages conflict with libfoo1.35.0-dev packages has just a
> > single nega
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 12:22:24AM -0500, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
>
> In contrast, the alternative strategy of having all the libfoo-dev
> (1.34.1) packages conflict with libfoo1.35.0-dev packages has just a
> single negative: that you can't develop simultaneously with 1.34.1 and
> 1.35.0. On the
On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 03:43:35PM -0500, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 12:20:39PM +0200, Domenico Andreoli wrote:
>
> > I think new and separate boost-1.35 package is the best option we have:
> >
> > 1. It may be uploaded now and released with lenny without touching
> >
6 matches
Mail list logo
