From: Rene Rivera (grafikrobot_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-04-13 12:04:35
Steve M. Robbins wrote:
> From Debian's perspective, the name changes we'd like to see are:
> 1. Remove the compiler name.
> 2. Remove the Boost version name.
> I'm going to do #1 for Debian's 1.35.0 packages in any case, but
> having explicit upstream support for this is way better.
I somehow always end up pointing this out... The compiler is put into
the library name because using different compiler+stdc++ can cause ABI
changes. So I have a simple question about the Debian packaging; What
happens when the compiler version changes in the system but the library
versions do not? Do you recompile all the packages to the new version?
Are users forced to recompile all their code?
Recently I've been thinking that just dropping the association between
the Boost version number and the SO version number is best. Since the
version number is encoded in the library name itself anyway. For a frame
of reference our current scheme follows
And dropping the SO version, and replacing it with a fixed release number:
But the thought of testing such a change on the varied OS's that all
have different requirements for the version number depresses me into
postponing attempting it :-\
-- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org (msn) - grafik/redshift-software.com -- 102708583/icq - grafikrobot/aim,yahoo,skype,efnet,gmail
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