From: David Abrahams (david.abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-11-07 19:04:36
----- Original Message -----
From: "Markus Schoepflin" <markus.schoepflin_at_[hidden]>
> 1. There will be STLport version that are link compatible with
> others. Should we make special arangements for this in the build
> system? Or just ignore the whole issue and treat each
> major/minor/bugfix/whatever release as a new version with it's own
> directory name?
> I prefer the latter for now. I don't know if it's worth the effort to
> figure out which revisions are compatible.
Automatic determination would not be worth it (or even possible?), but I
think it is worth having a rule that lets you specify properties that are
link-compatible with one another.
> 2. Should the build system provide any support for enabling things
> from stl_user_config.h? Currently it ignores most of the settings and
> just deals with io streams mode and debug mode. Possible solutions
> a) Ignore it completely. (Not nice)
> b) Support some major config switches. (As it is now. Perhaps we need
> support for more?)
> c) Support every config switch which affects link compatibility as a
> feature. (Who is going to figure out what these switches are?)
> d) The above plus the other config switches as free features.
> The best would be option d) but probably b) will be sufficient...
I agree completely. Anyway, there is a continuum between b and d; we don't
have to do it all at once.
David Abrahams, C++ library designer for hire
C++ Booster (http://www.boost.org)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk