Re: [boost] New Boost RPM spec file

From: Patrick Hartling (patrick_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-05-17 15:08:35

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:
> http://nbecker.dyndns.org:8080/boost-nb-1.33.1-3.src.rpm

This is an interesting approach. I hadn't thought about stripping out the
toolset name or the version information in the base library name. Having the
version information in the file name twice is probably not necessary for
this case, and it seems safe to assume that GCC will usually be the toolset
used for Linux. I don't know if the Intel Compiler toolset case needs to be
taken into account.

After thinking more about how your RPM will install in parallel with the
Fedora Core RPM, I got to thinking about parallel Boost installations in
general. I am starting to think that it could be very beneficial to allow
for Boost headers to be installed in parallel via an RPM--especially if
Boost releases start happening more frequently. Considering the way that
Boost is built and installed outside the scope of an RPM, it seems like this
is the intention. Is that a fair assessment?

 -Patrick

P.S. Aside from boost-base.patch, what do the other patches do?

-- 
Patrick L. Hartling                    | VP Engineering, Infiscape Corp.
PGP: http://tinyurl.com/2oum9          | http://www.infiscape.com/