Re: [Boost-bugs] [Boost C++ Libraries] #1094: Finding the correct library to link (feature request for pkg-config support)h

Subject: Re: [Boost-bugs] [Boost C++ Libraries] #1094: Finding the correct library to link (feature request for pkg-config support)h
From: Boost C++ Libraries (noreply_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-11-03 21:00:43

#1094: Finding the correct library to link (feature  request for pkg-config
support)h
-----------------------------------------------+----------------------------
 Reporter:  rleigh@…                           |       Owner:  vladimir_prus
     Type:  Feature Requests                   |      Status:  new          
Milestone:  Boost 1.40.0                       |   Component:  build        
  Version:                                     |    Severity:  Problem      
 Keywords:  pkg-config linking library naming  |  
-----------------------------------------------+----------------------------

Comment(by Braden McDaniel <braden@…>):

 Installing multiple `.pc` files for a given Boost library makes no less
 (or more) sense than installing multiple configurations of the library.
 Similarly, generating multiple names for a `.pc` file based on the
 configuration makes just as much sense as doing so for the library name. I
 will certainly grant that installing multiple configurations of a library
 is not something that is generally desirable on most modern POSIXy
 systems. And so even if multiple `.pc` files were installed, there would
 be one configuration name that would wind up as a de facto default (just
 as `libboost_foo-mt` is what users of these systems link with most of the
 time now).

 The point is that `pkg-config` doesn't solve the "I don't know which
 configuration I want" problem. It solves the "I don't know what
 compiler/linker flags I need" problem while assuming that the `.pc` file
 name you provided corresponds to an acceptable configuration.

 But don't get the impression that I'm ''advocating'' changing the `.pc`
 file name based on the configuration. I'm just pointing out that using
 single name for all configurations of a library (1) is inconsistent with
 Boost's practice for library naming and (2) doesn't accomplish anything
 that isn't also be accomplished by ''not'' mutating the library name based
 on the configuration. That said, I think it is perfectly acceptable to
 amend this practice where `.pc` files are concerned if only because the
 library naming ship has already sailed.

-- 
Ticket URL: <https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/1094#comment:15>
Boost C++ Libraries <http://www.boost.org/>
Boost provides free peer-reviewed portable C++ source libraries.