Now that we've transitioned to cmake, I'd like to resurrect the discussion about moving to a new version of boost. I'm dying to use small_vector and flat_map. IIRC, we have a few options: 1) boost as a submodule. compile and link statically. - easy to maintain - no packaging impact - dev/build environment is not dependent on system install boost 2) build and package newer boost, build packages, and distribute with ceph. - distro folks won't lose their hats - bunch of packaging work - bunch of release repo building work (to ensure proper packages get included) - dev environments are awkward (need new boost installed on the system) 3) combination of 1 and 2 - all of the work of 1 and 2 - plus, extra cmake options to use either static or dynamic version 4) #1, with cmake smarts to let you choose the submodule or installed boost (and possibly autoselect system boost if it's new enough). I'm prety firmly in the #1/#4 camp because I don't think that #2 brings any benefits that aren't political. The main reason to use shared libraries is because distros/users can update it independently to fix bugs or (more importantly) security flaws. However, in the case of boost, almost all of it exists in header code and is compiled statically, so the likelihood that a bug might be found that can be fixed by recompiling the dynamically linked portion is basically zero. And it's a ton of extra work to build and distribute the shared libraries. One other note from the previous thread: 'bcp' can be used to extra subcomponents of the library to compile statically. Matt found this tended to snowball and there was some risk of conflicting with an installed boost. And building the whole thing was less than a minute anyway? How should we proceed? And who wants to take this on? sage -- 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
