Boost logo

Boost :

From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2020-06-15 16:04:48

On 2020-06-15 17:43, Aleksei Nikiforov via Boost wrote:
> 15.06.2020 17:28, Andrey Semashev via Boost пишет:
>> On 2020-06-15 17:09, Aleksei Nikiforov via Boost wrote:
>>> Not sure what happens with them in Debian, but those symlinks seem to be
>>> not packaged as well.
>> Debian/Ubuntu packages do have symlinks - in dev packages. Binary
>> packages only contain libraries with ABI version tags in their names.
>> In general, you do want the untagged library names available only in dev
>> packages to enable linking with the library. In binary packages you want
>> tagged library names to allow installing multiple ABI-incompatible
>> versions of the library on target systems. Since Boost does not maintain
>> ABI compatibility, this means Boost libraries include the full Boost
>> version as the ABI tag.
> There are no and
> symlinks in boost 1.67.0.

Why would they be needed?

Such multi-layered symlinks are created in cases when there are
different guarantees offered by different library names or backward
compatibility reasons (e.g. the library was renamed or changed its
tagging scheme at some point). This is not the case with Boost, so
there's no point in creating or packaging them.

> Let's take a look at boost 1.71.0. In Debian only
> is packaged into dev package, and is
> packaged into library package. and
> are missing while they should be present after
> boost build:

What makes you think and should be present?

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at