From: David Abrahams (david.abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-05-07 22:32:21
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rene Rivera" <grafik666_at_[hidden]>
> Well I'm back after some hardware rearrangements... and having one of my
> RAID drives break during the movememnts :-(
Ouch. But that's what the "R" is for, right?
> >In sum, I think I've refactored things appropriately to support AIX and
> >shared libraries. The code got a bit simpler in some places. AIX shared
> >support is itself a somewhat fragile idea.
> >The question: should this branch be merged into the main trunk?
> Umm, there are a fair number of changes for that support. Also seems like
> lot of new code we would have to be prepared to deal with if something
> wrong, which inevitable does :-( And having it rely on Python seems like
> another reason not to have it for this release. The sense I get from your
> explanation is that you've convinced yourself not to merge to the trunk.
> Given the fragility you mention I'd say it's not worth the hasle for this
> release. It would be better to wait till after the release then merge.
> Remember we want to have a solid release this time.
I agree with your assessment.
Oh, one other thing I forgot to mention: my AIX clients have a makefile
example which links shared libraries that have cyclic dependencies. The
question is, should we try to support that in v2? I get the impression that
it might not be portable. Win32 comes to mind; I'm not sure how you'd
generate the import libs. We have encoded a requirement on linking against
.so dependencies in the OSF logic of v1, but I get the sense that it's
optional: OSF seems to warn about unresolved dependencies, but I think it
reverts to the GCC model of resolving them later if neccessary.
Boost-Build list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk