From: Rene Rivera (grafik666_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-01-16 11:15:31
[2003-01-16] David Abrahams wrote:
>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
>>>>> >libraries, shouldn't this library be called
>>>>> 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
>>>> 'name' being 'filesystem' in this case and 'ABI-tag' an identifier for
>>>> compiler, possibly including the stdlib. (note: STLport already uses
>>>> scheme, I'd prefer just stealing their ABI-tags if there are no good
>>>> 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:
>> Putting the version at the end is somewhat standard. And in my current
>> of OpenBSD required.
>> I could easily do this in BBV1:
>> The "boost_<name>" part is up to the library authors. If no one has
>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
We'd at least be one step above STLport ;-) Which only uses "gcc" regarless
of version of gcc, without a chance of changing it by the user.
-- grafik - Don't Assume Anything
-- rrivera_at_[hidden] - grafik_at_[hidden]
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