From: Toon Knapen (toon.knapen_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-10-15 02:48:56
Jürgen Hunold wrote:
> Hi !
> On Thursday 14 October 2004 10:11, Toon Knapen wrote:
>>Vladimir Prus wrote:
>>>When working on Linux, the <hardcode-dll-paths>true is almost
>>>always what user wants. This allows to run binaries which use
>>>dynamic libraries without changing LD_LIBRARY_PATH or installing
>>>the libraries to system locations. What about making "true" value
>>>the default, and stop telling the user about <hardcode-dll-paths>?
> +1 from my side. On Linux, it is quite hard to develop without
> <hardcode-dll-paths>on ;-))
IMO it depends if you're a developer working with your own software
(isolated) or if you intend to distribute your software. In the latter
case you can not hardcode the dll-paths because your users might want to
install the soft in another directory.
Now if don't hardcode the dll paths, both the isolated and the
distributing developers need to know about the issue from the moment
they start using dll's.
Now if we don't hardcode the dll paths, isolated developers will never
need to know about it. Distributing developers OTOH might face the
problem late in the development cycle.
So IMO we need to choose if we want to make it easier for the isolated
developer or for the distributing developer (because the distributing
developer might prefer to know from the moment he starts developing).
BTW, I certainly thinks the issue deserves to be mentioned in the FAQ.
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