Date: 2002-02-28 11:49:50
> I don't think "installing" a default version, even as a
> symbolic link, is a
> desirable property for boost. As was pointed out in detail on
> other posts, the
That is quite correct. The symbolic link should not be added as part of the
install, but a sysadmin or developer can create the symlink to the default
> 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.
None other than
(1) I have grown accustomed to this method and it seems to have become the
norm on Linux distributions. However I have not seen this on Solaris.
(2) I can apply a symlink to the default version if the directory naming
structure is include/boost-1.27.0
----------------------------------[ .signature ]---
Schalk W. Cronjé,
Codernaut, Webshield Engineering,
++C or C++ ?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk