Re: [jamboost] Library file names

From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-11-28 05:20:20

Victor A. Wagner, Jr. wrote:

> >GTK; libglib-1.2.so -> libglib-2.0.so; libgtk-1.2.so -> libgtk-2.0.so
> >
> >libpng; libpng10.so -> libpng12.so
> >
> >Linux, BSD, and most Unices; lib<name>.so.<major>.<minor>.<patch>
>
> I notice you concentrate on the dynamic linking (i.e. I don't see any
> static linked libraries mentioned). So why don't we just take it as given,
> that I'm more concerned with static linking than dynamic.
>
> BTW, I'm sorry that the unix guys haven't figured out crap that we had
> figured out back in 1985 (go look at how Amiga handled libraries if you
> want to see how sensible solutions work)

Victor, maybe you can stop expressing your bad attitude towards UNIX? This is 
not going to help your with convincing anybody in anything. Besides, if you 
have an idea to propose, you could have did it better than sending us to 
1985.

Finally, you should not feel sorry for unix guys, really. When somebody wants 
to use, say boost regex, on Debian Linux, he just says:

g++ <many-options> -lboost_regex

and uses whatever version is installed on the system. In fact, I think it's 
probably be good if install process created the proper symlinks from 
libboost_regex.so to libbost_regex.$version_number.so. That would at least 
help packaging, and not do any harm.

> > > I notice that the include files are NOT marked in such fashion,
> >
> >They are installed in <destination>/include/boost-1_31/... How is that NOT
> >marking them with the version?
>
> the file NAMES themselves aren't changed (the path has) it's a HUGE
> difference if you're using Visual Studio.. one simple change in the
> directories to search and ALL projects use the new includes. If we canNOT
> do the same for boost libraries, you doom it them oblivion on windows. I'm
> sure as hell not going to go change many projects "additional dependencies"
> simply because boostoids have released a new version.

So, you'd like boost_regex.1.31.0.lib to be boost_regex.lib? Hmm... is it all 
that hard to rename that manually or via script after you download new boost 
release. It's probably possible to make a copy with this name during 
installing, but IMO this is not so complex task as to doom boost into 
oblivion.

> > > Actually, it never would have passed the release review process.
> > > Before you suggest that all boost users just need to keep ALL versions
> > > of the library for backwards compatibility is also folly.
> >
> >1. It's not folly.
> >2. Users (or the installer/updaters acting for the users) will eventually
> >remove the old versions when they are no longer needed.
> >3. It's the de-facto standard in Linux, Unix, BSD, etc.
>
> guess what folks..... MOST programs are written for systems that are NOT
> Linux, Unix, BSD. HELLO!!!!! most computers are WINDOWS!!!!!

Again, please stop making statements like this. This is just flame.

> >To give an idea of the difficulty I suggest you try and create such a
> >library/dll/so -- and tell us how to do it.
>
> I said a .lib NOT a .dll, NOT a .so I trust we all understand the
> difference between static and dynamic linking
> if I'd meant dynamic, I would have said .lib AND .dll.

Maybe, you can tell us how to create static library, then? Do you know of any 
standard tool which takes several static libraries and create one merged one?
Or do you volunteer to write such a tool?

Compiling all source files and adding them to a single library looks like 
solution, but really isn't. What if single source does not build with any 
specific compiler? You get no library produced at all.

> > > To be overly melodramatic, I'll borrow a phrase from John F. Kennedy
> > > when challenging us to put a man on the moon.
> > > "We choose to do these things not because they are easy, but because
> > > they are hard."
> >
> >Irrelevant, but cute ;-)
>
> I'm serious folks, I showed a copy of Rene's previous response to a one of
> the ops on the undernet #C++ channel and he said "They expect me go update
> all my projects every time they release boost? They have to be f**king
> kidding."

I really can't understand why it's needed to use *that* much strong words when 
discussing a question if some file should be just copied to another one with 
a different name!

- Volodya