On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 07:14:15PM -0400, Sage Weil wrote: > On Thu, 28 Apr 2016, Robin H. Johnson wrote: > > If support for statically linking a newer Boost is brought it, please, > > please keep dynamic boost builds as fully supported, for distributions > > that can keep up to date. As a bonus, at some point in the future, when > > the slower distributions catch up, you might be able to escape the > > static again. > > Yeah, having the option to either build statically or dynamically against > an up-to-date distro is probably the right carrot/stick combination to > incentivize the distros to move to a newer boost. Plus, final binary sizes would be smaller if dynamic linking would succeed. > Being able to conditionally not use the new stuff (e.g., typedef > small_vector<> back to vector<>) may or may not work well, depending on > which new thing we're trying to use. That's bad idea, IMHO. Why not check for features we need on configure state and use static or dynamic accordingly? -- Piotr Dałek branch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://blog.predictor.org.pl -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
