Oops, I was about to suggest that Boost skip support for both GCC, Intel and VC++ entirely, and mainly focus on the Borland compiler running on Windows 98. I had better withdraw that suggestion then...
/David > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Abrahams > Sent: Friday, August 22, 2003 2:21 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [boost] Re: boost::format on gcc2.96? > > > Jarl Friis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >> All true. Unfortunately, 2.96 was released by RedHat with one > >> popular version of Linux, which makes it (in many peoples' > eyes) an > >> important compiler to support anyway. > > > > I will in line with the announcement suggest that any > support needed > > for or related to this particular gcc version should be > redirected to > > the supplier of the compiler (i.e. redhat). > > That's a very nice way to avoid extra work for Boost library > developers which they shouldn't have to do in the first > place, but since RedHat isn't actually going to do anything > for users, leaves them in the cold. > > I am noticing a theme in your postings today: you seem > remarkably unsympathetic to anyone who hasn't made what you > consider to be the "right" choice of software systems. At > Boost we *generally* try not to hold these kinds of missteps > against our users, because we're more interested in seeing > our software widely used than in avoiding the hassles of > platform dependencies; I don't think you're going to change > that culture with a few postings (at least I hope not)! > > -- > Dave Abrahams > Boost Consulting > www.boost-consulting.com > > _______________________________________________ > Unsubscribe & other changes: > http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/bo> ost > _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
