[pdal] Boost versioning

[Michael P. Gerlek]

/me is impressed

-mpg


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Howard Butler [mailto:hobu.inc at gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 7:50 AM
> To: mpg at flaxen.com
> Cc: pdal at lists.osgeo.org
> Subject: Re: [pdal] Boost versioning
> 
> bcp
> 
> http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_48_0/tools/bcp/doc/html/index.html
> 
> On Feb 2, 2012, at 12:16 PM, Michael P. Gerlek wrote:
> 
> > What tools do they provide for this?
> >
> > -mpg
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Howard Butler [mailto:hobu.inc at gmail.com]
> >> Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2012 9:29 AM
> >> To: mpg at flaxen.com
> >> Cc: pdal at lists.osgeo.org
> >> Subject: Re: [pdal] Boost versioning
> >>
> >>
> >> On Feb 2, 2012, at 10:51 AM, Michael P. Gerlek wrote:
> >>
> >>> Yesterday Mr. Rosen found yet another problem with Boost compatibility (1.47.x against VS2010)
> >>>
> >>> This is a topic for the Sprint next week, but maybe we can jump start it here...
> >>
> >> Near as I can tell, Boost's compatibility story is such a mess that projects simply give up and embed the version they need.  In fact
> >> there's tools to make that scenario easier.  Active projects like PCL, Mapnik, et. al seem to "use the latest release" at the developer
> >> level, and then expect that packagers take care of compilation issues
> >>
> >>>
> >>> - We need to support whatever version the major linux distros are using
> >>
> >> RHEL 6.1 is Boost 1.41, I believe.  I think Debian is about at that too.  It's too old for a lot of stuff.
> >>
> >>> - We want to support the (relatively) latest-and-greatest release (so we get nifty stuff we can gratuitously splatter all over the
> >> codebase :-)
> >>
> >> There's a couple of big discontinuities that affect us:
> >>
> >> - Boost filesystem changed from 2 to 3, and the transition is painful and requires #ifdefs
> >> - Boost random in 1.48 has some fancy stuff I'd like to use for pdal::filters::Stats
> >> - Boost spirit, to be used for our expression parser, has had some changes in the 1.44-1.46 timeframe.
> >>
> >>> Can we then cut this problem down to just supporting two versions?  Or are there other concerns?  (like, which boost do the Mac
> >> fanboys use?)
> >>
> >> we quickly get to the point where it's easier to embed the things we want and not depend on getting screwed by the system
> boost...=
> >