From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-10-21 12:29:55
On Saturday 21 October 2006 20:03, Rene Rivera wrote:
> Vladimir Prus wrote:
> > libboost_program_options-gcc-1_35.so.1.35.0
> > libboost_program_options-gcc-1_35.so (symlink to the above)
> > libboost_program_options-gcc.so
> If that last one is not a symlink, then that's a bug in BBv1.
Ah, that's actually *hard* link? Why?
> > I gather that the different scheme with Boost might be related to lack of
> > binary compatibility between versions, but was this an explicit decision?
> Yes it was an explicit decision right before the 1.33.1 release. The
> emails archives should have the discussion. But I don't remember which
> list it was on.
> > Should we raise raise the question about binary compability betwen 1.N.M
> > and 1.N.(M+1) on the devel list?
> Search the archives ;-)
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