Re: [boost] RE: Installing Boost

From: Rene Rivera (grafik666_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-02-28 11:32:57

On 2002-02-28 at 05:24 PM, schalk_cronje_at_[hidden] wrote:

>> 
>> $prefix/include/boost/1.27.0/boost/.../*.hpp
>> $prefix/lib/boost/1.27.0/*.(a,so)
>> $prefix/share/boost/1.27.0/tools/build/*.jam
>
>I prefer this kind of approach. On Linux (Mandrake or RedHat) I would rather
>use $prefix/include/boost-1.27.0/boost with a symbolic link from
>$prefix/include/boost to the default boost version. The same applies to the
>compiled libraries.

I don't think "installing" a default version, even as a synbolic link, is a
desirable property for boost. As was pointed out in detail on other posts, the
source and link compatability problems are too numerous to account for. The
developer users can only reliably use specific versions.

>> Those are the "source" files. For documentation it gets a 
>> little tricky. There
>> are two possible practices:
>> 
>> $prefix/share/boost/1.27.0/doc/...(reproduce html tree & files)
>
>$prefix/share/doc/boost-1.27.0

You seem to prefer "boost-1.27.0" instead of "boost/1.27.0". Any reason why? I
know that name-version is a common use, but for source distributions, like gcc
and perl, the name/version is more common.

-- grafik - Don't Assume Anything
-- rrivera_at_[hidden] - grafik_at_[hidden]
-- 102708583_at_icq - Grafik666_at_AIM - Grafik_at_[hidden]