From: braden_mcdaniel (braden_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-03-01 13:46:05
--- In boost_at_y..., "David Abrahams" <david.abrahams_at_r...> wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "braden_mcdaniel" <braden_at_e...>
> > --- In boost_at_y..., Rene Rivera <grafik666_at_r...> wrote:
> > > Takign a look at what other source type programs do (gcc, emacs,
> > perl, etc.).
> > Don't look at what other programs do; look at what other
> > > It seems that versioning the subdirectories under a common prefix
> > location is
> > > a workable practice. Would then something like the following work
> > for us?
> > >
> > > $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
> > That's offensive.
> Please try to keep extreme pronouncements out of the discussion.
> of thing just causes static and doesn't help at all.
> > Why would you do this? The versioning "problem" is solved by autoconf
> > and libtool.
> > If someone wants to install multiple boost versions on their system at
> > once, the solution is simple: don't put them under the same prefix.
> That's not a very smooth solution for those who need to test against
> multiple versions.
Such persons are the minority. It is better to make their lives a
little more difficult than to make the lives of everyone else much
What other libraries use a scheme like Rene suggested?
These issues with deployment aren't new, and they certainly aren't
unique to Boost. Why are novel solutions being proposed?
> Having a version number under a common prefix really
> simplifies configuration: it means you don't need to explicitly
> installation directory for each version you want to test against.
Testing against multiple versions of Boost is definitely an edge case.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk