Hello!
Does anybody know the reason why fedora 10 (quite a modern linux distro I'd say) still shipped with boost version 1.34, while latest release is 1.38 ?
+2
A:
Probably because people aren't willing to chip in and help keep the package up to date.
Hint, hint.
If it's any consolation, Ubuntu Jaunty looks like it will have 1.37...
Alastair
2009-04-16 13:38:53
+3
A:
Operating systems are seldom shipped with the latest versions of anything. It's not just a matter of packaging the latest version of X with the OS, because every other part that depends of X has to be tested with the new version. Compatibility on paper doesn't always mean compatibility in reality - there can and will be surprises.
That's why for instance Debian's stable releases include almost ancient software sometimes; ancient, but stable.
Joonas Pulakka
2009-04-16 13:42:18
Fair point in general, but in the case of boost, there actually aren't that many OS applications that depend on it...
Alastair
2009-04-16 13:49:55
A large portion of boost is actually compiled into an application rather than stored as a library. You won't actually notice the dependency unless you attempt to build the package, not just run it.
sharth
2009-04-16 14:17:48
A:
My guess is that they shipped a somewhat old library because it still worked, and they didn't want to test a new version. Distos are usually one or two versions behind on most packages. Also, 1.38 didn't exist when Fedora 10 was released. For Fedora 11, they might ship a newer version.
Zifre
2009-04-16 13:42:43
A:
Don't know about Fedora, but Debian/testing was stuck on 1.35 for most of last year while they got Lenny released. Meanwhile boost released 1.36, 1.37 & 1.38 fast and furious within a 7 month period.
I don't see it as a big deal. Stuff boost releases is generally in a very stable "done" state, not a work in progress. If you're using something in 1.3x, then it's pretty unlikely you'll hit bugs which you need a later version to fix. If you absolutely want some new library they've released, then building a /usr/local version from sources isn't that onerous.
timday
2009-04-18 21:50:13