Boost logo

Boost :

From: Allen Bierbaum (allenb_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-05-17 11:08:26

I for one would really appreciate it if the boost community was able to
produce a recommended spec file for building and installing boost rpms
and correspondingly for packaging boost up with other package management

The current situation for developers using packaged versions of boost
ranges from painful to downright impossible. Developer to rely upon
packagers to follow any of the standard boost conventions.
Unfortunately this hurts my use of boost and makes it so I have to
include my own builds with any applications I distribute. If the boost
community created and maintained a set of recommended packaging files
and conventions this problem could largely be eliminated.

Doesn't this cause problems for anyone else?


Neal Becker wrote:

>Patrick Hartling wrote:
>>In my company's use of Boost, we have found that the Boost RPM installed
>>with Linux distributions such as Fedora Core and Red Hat Enterprise Linux
>>does not quite meet our needs. This happens because that RPM does not
>>install the multi-threaded versions of the libraries, nor does it preserve
>>the version information on the installed libraries. I have attached an RPM
>>spec file that addresses these issues and that allows targeting 32-bit
>>Linux from an x86_64 installation (though it has to exclude Boost.Python
>>and Boost.iostreams).
>>Personally, I would like to see Boost RPMs built that follow the existing
>>Boost conventions more closely, but that may not be a popular view. If
>>nothing else, I thought that posting this file would be helpful to people
>>who have run into the same issues that we have seen.
>I build an rpm also that installs in parallel to Fedora. This is needed
>because some other Fedora packages depend on the standard Fedora boost rpm,
>but as you said, I want a boost rpm that is more like the boost standard.
>Also, I added a couple of my own patches.
>Find it here:
>Unsubscribe & other changes:

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at