Re: [Openexr-devel] boost versions

[Larry Gritz]

I also had some trouble with Boost 1.50, didn't feel like tracking it down, so 
I just reverted back to 1.49 in order to get back on track to what I was really 
trying to accomplish.  I think 1.51 is already in beta, so I figured it was 
pointless to try debugging 1.50.

90% of my boost use is to get features that are (finally) in C++11, either 
because they weren't in the standard yet, or now that they are, because I can't 
count on everybody using a sufficiently new enough compiler.


On Aug 19, 2012, at 9:31 AM, Andrew Harvey wrote:

> Boost 1.49 here.
> 
> I have tried using Boost 1.50 elsewhere (compiling against Alembic)
> but it seems the devs have rearranged things somewhat. Not sure if
> this applies to OpenEXR, but Alembic previously just required
> boost-threads. It now requires boost-system too under 1.50 (relates to
> exceptions and error handling, if I recall correctly.)
> 
> - Andrew
> 
> 
> On 19 August 2012 04:54, address@hidden
> <address@hidden> wrote:
>> boost 1.42 or 1.46, used by Alembic and Houdini 12.
>> 
>> From: Richard Addison-Wood
>> Date: 2012-08-18 12:32
>> To: Piotr Stanczyk
>> CC: address@hidden
>> Subject: Re: [Openexr-devel] boost versions
>> Personally, I would recommend avoiding any dependencies on boost.
>> 
>> On 18/08/12 11:41 AM, Piotr Stanczyk wrote:
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Out of interest, what boost version are people using most commonly? Anyone
>> hitting the dizzy heights of 1.50?
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> 
>> Piotr
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Openexr-devel mailing list
>> address@hidden
>> https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/openexr-devel
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Openexr-devel mailing list
> address@hidden
> https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/openexr-devel

--
Larry Gritz
address@hidden