From: Stefan Seefeld (seefeld_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-06-17 10:58:54
Vladimir Prus wrote:
>>>I think Boost packages for all Linux distribution will have exactly those
>>>names, so static .pc file can be fine.
>>Ok. But who creates / maintains them ?
> Hmm... I guess asking all packagers to create their own version is not good.
Right. I think I wasn't very clear: I believe generating and installing pc files
for all boost libraries as part of the boost.build process is fine. Yet some
systems package the libraries differently (renamed libraries, different installation
prefixes, etc.), so it must be possible to modify those files.
>>>Ok, for installing from CVS the name indeed can vary. Note however, that
>>>for shared linking you don't need -l...program_options... and
>>>-l...filesystem... at all.
>>That depends on the platform. Not everywhere is the dependency encoded in
>>the library itself. On some the user has to explicitly (re)link with *all*
Sorry, can't find any offhand. But I had the problem in the past where I had
to explicitely link with libraries I only depended on indirectly. Unfortunately
building / linking / loading shared libraries is a pretty ugly aspect of most
OSes, which is why tools such as pkg-config and libtool exist in the first place.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk