qpid-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrew Stitcher <astitc...@redhat.com>
Subject Re: Proposal: get rid of automake build system.
Date Sun, 10 Mar 2013 15:47:20 GMT
On Sat, 2013-03-09 at 09:24 +0000, Fraser Adams wrote:
> ...
> I'm surprised that you are surprised. I'd have thought that the place 
> most people first look for Qpid downloads is:
> http://qpid.apache.org/download.html
> and that only actually mentions Fedora packages

Hmm, interesting, when I want to install something (on either fedora or
ubuntu/debian) the first thing I'd do would be apt-get/yum. So obviously
I assume that everyone else is the same. I thought there were official
qpid packages now for ubuntu/debian if not then obviously you will end
up compiling from source and also it may not be as up to date as you;d
like too.

> ...
> Then there's the endless fun relating to boost dependencies - plenty of 
> systems that use Qpid also have boost deployed for other reasons and 
> it's not notorious for having great interoperability between different 
> versions. I definitely know of people having to juggle things due to boost.

Yes, boost dependencies are a real pain and if our users actually
pointed out how much of a pain we could probably prioritise mitigating
this completely now.

For the Unix port of qpid we only need one boost library
(program_options) linked in and this is what forces the dependency
problems. Most of our us of boost is header file code only, and even a
large part of that is now in the standard library. This means that there
would be no installed dependency on boost, but further it would be
possible (although it's not clear how desirable) to fix a version of
boost and copy the needed header files into our tree and avoid any
external dependency. boost even has a utility to do this - bcp.


To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org

View raw message