From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-10-15 05:04:16
On Friday 15 October 2004 11:48, Toon Knapen wrote:
> > +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.
Right. However, the problem is not that serious. You need either to decide
not to use any hardcoded path, or install all the libraries in one directory
and hardcode that directory. The persons who do packaging (where the problem
is relevant) are supposedly already aware of the problem, so will be able to
decide which alternative they want.
> 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).
I think we generally tried to be as helpfull for starters. Some Boost
developers might not know anything about shared libraries on Linux, for
> BTW, I certainly thinks the issue deserves to be mentioned in the FAQ.
This is certainly true! The explanation of Linux details is too dense for main
documentation, but is fine for 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