From: Domenico Andreoli (cavokz_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-07-30 06:38:39
On Mon, Jul 30, 2007 at 01:57:31PM +0400, Vladimir Prus wrote:
> 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.
i wrote "generally portable" assuming there are other platforms different
from windows and unix which may be supported by boost. don't know, they
could be eCos and QNX. one of the goals of Boost is being portable and
ported, why make any assumption? sure you did not made too many when
you chose to encode the toolset in the decorated names, did you?
if you do not care of them (if any), feel free to drop the toolset from
the _symlinks_ used to build software, i will not cry :)
-----[ Domenico Andreoli, aka cavok
---[ 3A0F 2F80 F79C 678A 8936 4FEE 0677 9033 A20E BC50
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk