Re: [boost] building shared boost libraries

From: Nathan Myers (ncm-yahoospam_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-01-19 17:47:54

"Steve M. Robbins" wrote:

> I'm sure it sounds like I'm trying to push libtool on you; I'm not.
> It's just that it is the library-building tool with which I am familiar
> and the libtool authors have researched shared lib building and
> cross-platform issues way better than I have.  It doesn't matter to
> me how the libraries are ultimately built.  It matters to me that
> they have a workable versioning scheme.

A good version labeling scheme makes the difference between DLL Hell and
near invisibility.  Most Unixes have had good versioning for a long time.
With good versioning, different versions (and programs that depend on
them) can coexist safely.

The Debian Policy guidelines go a bit further, ensuring that library packages
are named so that they can coexist safely.  Observing that policy, once boost
gets packaged (whether in .dpkg, .rpm, .ipkg, or what have you) it could go 
a long way toward eliminating versionitis connected with boost libraries.  

(It's not too soon to start thinking about packaging.  The "stuff" associated
with the various packaging schemes is small and can go directly in the source
tarball, making things easier on everybody.)

> > If it does everything so well, why do people use other tools?
> 
> I am not aware of any similar tool in the UNIX milieu.  
> 
> Projects that don't use libtool tend to build shared libraries "by
> hand", using the compiler and linker.  Why?  I would guess that the
> main reasons are: the project pre-dates libtool, wide portability is
> not a goal of the project, dislike of libtool, or simple ignorance of
> libtool.

The last I heard, libtool was not very compatible with C++.  
Has that been fixed?  Has it been fixed for all targets?
(I had the impression it would be hard to fix for non-ELF targets.)

Nathan Myers
ncm at cantrip dot org