From: Dean Michael Berris (mikhailberis_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-09-08 16:28:55
On 9/9/06, Patrick Hartling <patrick_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > Having a package that's made available to the whole system or
> > installed as part of the (Linux) distribution is definitely a step in
> > the right direction especially for organizations/enterprises/people
> > who want to make packages out of the applications they are building.
> > In our case, we use Debian and we write a set of applications that are
> > made to work with the stable banch -- we build the Boost 1.33.1
> > library and package it as a .deb so that we can install the binary
> > libraries on the stable branch (which is pretty much like backporting,
> > but we already include Asio and Spirit in the custom Boost .deb we
> > build).
> Is your packaging of Boost into a .deb package available somewhere? Or do
> you have recommendations on how to do it? I would like to learn more about
> Debian packaging, and it would be very helpful to have something I could
> compare to what we have been doing for Boost.
The packaging of the Boost 1.33.1 + Boost.Asio 0.3.7 + Boost.Spirit
1.8.3 we're using for our current project is not _yet_ available from
the Internet. For the matter, it might take a while before we can get
out a .deb out for the Debian stable banch, because the packages in
that branch undergo a process. We like testing things out before
releasing anything. ;)
I could certainly ask the package maintainer in our team to write it
down and maybe put it up in the Boost Wiki. That might take some time,
but I believe he just made a few modifications to that already
included debian packaging instructions/files in the Boost 1.33.1
You can look at how to do the debian package making in the debian
site: http://debian.org/ -- I'm currently too lazy to look for the
link to the actual documents. While you're at it, you might also want
to try Debian out. :)
> > I would imagine (and would like to think) that people who
> > develop for RedHat based systems would want to be able to roll their
> > own binary Boost .rpm's for distribution along with their applications
> > also distributed as .rpm's.
> That is what we are doing currently, but we run into problems because our
> packaging of Boost is different than what Red Hat is doing. My intention
> with this spec file is to have it (or something similar) be included with
> Boost so that it is easier for people to do exactly what you are describing.
I understand your pain... I had been disappointed that the Boost 1.33
release has not yet been accepted into the Debian stable tree -- which
would have made our lives a lot easier. IIRC, Boost 1.30 is the one
available from the stable branch and I am more familiar with the 1.33
libraries. That being said, I'm also lucky that I have an experienced
Debian and Ubuntu package maintainer in my team. ;)
> > I agree with David on this one, and will look forward to a Boost
> > provided SPEC file without having to rely on the configurations of
> > RedHat/Fedora of the Boost library.
> > Hope this helps!
> Maybe I am misunderstanding, but I think that you inverted the quoting
> above. It appears to me that you attributed David's argument to me and vice
> versa. It seems to me that you and I share a lot of goals WRT software
> deployment and maintenance.
Yes, my bad. I meant I agree with you. :D
-- Dean Michael C. Berris C++ Software Architect Orange and Bronze Software Labs, Ltd. Co. web: http://software.orangeandbronze.com/ email: dean_at_[hidden] mobile: +63 928 7291459 phone: +63 2 8943415 other: +1 408 4049532 blogs: http://mikhailberis.blogspot.com http://3w-agility.blogspot.com http://cplusplus-soup.blogspot.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk