From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-07-30 01:55:45
Domenico Andreoli wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 11:37:39AM -0400, Neal Becker wrote:
>> Vladimir Prus wrote:
>> > I think that we should do the following instead:
>> > 1. Generally change build process to no longer produce
>> > zillion of variants, at least on Linux.
>> > 2. Make sure "system layout" produces exactly that. In particular,
>> > the "-mt" suffix should disappear. As result, names like
>> > libboost_program_options.so will be used.
>> > 3. Make "system" layout the default, at least on Linux. Alternatively,
>> > write a special docs for packages that says: "for packaging Boost, use
>> > --layout=system"
>> I think typically linux distros want the version, but not the 'gcc41'
>> part. We really do need to allow multiple versions, as is common practice
>> other shared libs on linux systems. Since multiple compilers are
>> distros normally ignore that. These statements are true on
>> at least. Since boost doesn't provide an option for this, on redhat the
>> jamfiles were hacked to do it.
> IIRC there is a C++ ABI standard definition, which should allow mixing
> binaries and libraries built with complying compilers. I do not know how
> much widesprhead is its adoption, IIRC gcc complies starting from 3.2.
> The point is that it might be too early to drop the toolkint encoding
> in the library decorated soname even under linux. Suppose a icc user
> builds its application using a Boost library built with gcc. He could
> spend days of debugging before discover where is the problem.
> This issue could well be sorted out at the root, discoverying at build
> time that there is no suitable Boost library to be used with icc.
How? pkgconfig is of no help, since it apparently does not understand
"give me libraries to link with when using icc" request.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk