Re: [boost] [1.35.0] Build/install (attn: release team)

From: Rene Rivera (grafikrobot_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-10-23 15:51:31

Douglas Gregor wrote:
> On Oct 23, 2007, at 12:56 PM, Rene Rivera wrote:
> 
>> The topic of what gets built "out of the box" came up again, this time
>> on IRC. Some background... In the past we have gone the route of
>> building as much as possible when users do the manual Boost
>> build+install. That approach has gotten us a rather distressing
>> reputation of building being a real pain, mostly because it takes a  
>> long
>> time to build. But also because it generates a dizzying array of  
>> library
>> files and hence people have a hard time understanding what to link to.
>>
>> The old real way to "solve" this is to reduce the number of  
>> variants we
>> build by default. So the current favorite is to only build:
>>
>>    * multi-threaded, shared runtime, release

Volodya pointed out that that might be misleading of me since I made a 
usual assumption. What I meant was: multi-threaded, shared, release. 
Meaning shared libraries, and hence shared runtime.

> Good. Will the names of the resulting libraries be mangled or not?

No. That would involve changes to the auto-linking code which would 
cause a cascade of failures, and not just in our own testing. We

> Mangling those names seems like a good idea on Windows, not such a  
> good idea on *nix.

What we can do for Unix is to make the untagged symlinks point to the 
default variant. That way the simple default usage on Unix does the 
expected.

-- 
-- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything
-- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com
-- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com
-- 102708583/icq - grafikrobot/aim - grafikrobot/yahoo