From: David Abrahams (david.abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-03-01 15:18:07
----- Original Message -----
From: "braden_mcdaniel" <braden_at_[hidden]>
> > 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
> more difficult.
> What other libraries use a scheme like Rene suggested?
Python does something similar.
> These issues with deployment aren't new, and they certainly aren't
> unique to Boost. Why are novel solutions being proposed?
Why do you say "novel"? It's not as though these ideals are local
inventions. Rene's suggestion is taken from other *nix libraries and tools
we've seen where versioning counts.
> > Having a version number under a common prefix really
> > simplifies configuration: it means you don't need to explicitly
> specify an
> > installation directory for each version you want to test against.
> Testing against multiple versions of Boost is definitely an edge case.
Since it appears we can make everyone happy using symbolic links, do we
really have to choose?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk