|
|
|
|
|
|
by jcelerier
1205 days ago
|
|
|
> Library B uses Boost and requires the newer version of Boost. but the same question applies to Library B: if your regulations state that you can't update your compiler version past the default distro one, why can you bring in some random recent libraries that are definitely not part of the distro since they depend on a Boost version that is more recent than the one your distro provides? Of course this all very stupid when you can install GCC 11 and compile in C++20 mode on RH 7 with the official devtoolsets... But the core problem is as always to tie compilers to linux distros, like a C++ compiler version is relevant in any way to your operating system's stability... |
|
|
But the old one is crufty and barely maintained and nobody wants to touch it, and the new one is only using one feature of the new version of Boost, so it's a easier to blacklist the newer version of Boost than to overhaul all the old code. But is that what we wanted to cause?
Moreover, with widely used core libraries like this, that sort of thing happens repeatedly, and now the downstream users have to do work they wouldn't have had to do if compatibility was maintained. At scale probably a lot more work than it would be for the widely used thing to maintain compatibility. That seems bad.