From: Jonathan Wakely (cow_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-06-16 07:36:14
On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 07:59:49AM -0400, Stefan Seefeld wrote:
> Vladimir Prus wrote:
> > I think that if packagers rename the libraries.... well nothing would work
> > because then the name of the library encoded inside it will be different
> > from the filename ;-)
> You are right, on most systems there is more to renaming a library than
> just 'mv foo.so bar.so'.
> > So, packages will either
> > 1. Build boost in some other way
> > 2. Make Boost.Build use the conventions they want.
> > In either case, they'll know the naming conventions used and can
> > generate .pc files without any Boost.Build help.
> Sure they *can*. But so far it hasn't happened, and I believe instead of
> sending a RFE to RedHat and Debian and... it is simpler to make the change
> to the boost build system and then encourage packagers to follow the
And if only pre-built packaged versions come with pkg-config support it
doesn't help if I want to switch between the pre-built libs and ones I
built myself from CVS.
> > BTW, where should .pc file be installed? $prefix/lib/pkgconfig
> > or /usr/lib/pkgconfig? With arbitrary prefix, the .pc file just won't be
> > found, which make it useless.
> I install them into <prefix>/lib/pkgconfig. That of course requires the
> PKG_CONFIG_PATH to be set. That is basically the same procedure as setting
> the LD_LIBRARY_PATH if libraries are installed in places not automatically
> looked in by the library loader.
And IMHO that's an important point, just by using a different
PKG_CONFIG_PATH you can link to a completely different set of libs:
make CXX=g++41 PKG_CONFIG_PATH=$HOME/boost_built_with_gcc41
I wouldn't have to change the Makefile at all for this to work.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk