Boost logo

Boost-Build :

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-01-16 10:55:35

Rene Rivera <grafik666_at_[hidden]> writes:

> [2003-01-16] David Abrahams wrote:
>>Ulrich Eckhardt <uli_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>> On Wednesday 15 January 2003 15:49, you wrote:
>>>> At 04:25 AM 1/15/2003, Steven Kirk wrote:
>>>> >windows. Judging by the naming convention used by the other current
> boost
>>>> >libraries, shouldn't this library be called "libboost_filesystem.lib"?
>>>> Yes, I guess. I'll add it to the do list.
>>> Isn't there a big flaw in that naming-convention ? It means I can't
> install a
>>> version compiled for different compilers due to their differing ABIs.
>>> Therefore, I'd rather go for
>>> libboost_<name>_<ABI-tag>-version.lib
>>> 'name' being 'filesystem' in this case and 'ABI-tag' an identifier for
> the
>>> compiler, possibly including the stdlib. (note: STLport already uses such
> a
>>> scheme, I'd prefer just stealing their ABI-tags if there are no good
> reasons
>>> to do otherwise).
>>You're probably right. We don't have a system to do that right now,
>>but it's probably a pretty easy change.
> Not totally right... It should be:
> libboost_<name>_<API-tag>.lib.<version>
> Putting the version at the end is somewhat standard. And in my current case
> of OpenBSD required.
> I could easily do this in BBV1:
> lib<name>_<TOOLSET_NAME>.lib.<version>
> The "boost_<name>" part is up to the library authors. If no one has
> objections?

I have no objections, but it's not bulletproof. For example,
different versions of gcc have different ABIs, but unless the user has
installed a custom toolset definition, they will have the same name.
And there's no way to control which versions users will call plain old

David Abrahams
dave_at_[hidden] *
Boost support, enhancements, training, and commercial distribution

Boost-Build list run by bdawes at, david.abrahams at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at