From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-07-30 05:57:31
Domenico Andreoli wrote:
>> Those (a)-(c) points above are the most clear explanations of pkgconfig
>> benefits I've heard on this list, and it appears reasonable to add
>> pkgconfig support to Boost.Build. At the same time, I think we *first*
>> should try to change the build process so that properly named libraries
>> are created on Linux, so that things work even without pkgconfig.
> let me stress the fact that sources using linux names would not be
> generally portable to other platforms.
What platforms you have in mind? If other Unix*, then if library
names don't have toolset name in them, there's no problem.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk