Re: [Boost-build] Boost library naming scheme

From: Roland Schwarz (roland.schwarz_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-04-14 10:23:19

Steve M. Robbins wrote:
> Yes --layout=system is closer to what I want.

After having tried to look up debian policy I think I understand what
you are after at.

> Since you've asked, I'd propose one of two things: either (1) change
> the behaviour of layout=system; or (2) for backwards compatibility
> keep layout=system and add a third layout (system-versioned?)  that
> does what I suggest.

(1) would be fine I think i.e.
libboost_program_options.so.1.34.1

and to have symbolic unversioned link.

However one question about debian policy:

http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer/column/libpkg-guide/libpkg-guide.html#sonameapiabi

"In most cases, if a package version matches the SONAME, it is a sign
that there is a problem with the versioning scheme."

So, if following your suggestion, would this indicate we introduce a
"problem with the versioning scheme"?

Shouldn't boost libs rather:

libboost_program_options.1.34.1.so

and have a unversioned link from

libboost_program_options.so

Could you please comment on this?

-- 
_________________________________________
  _  _  | Roland Schwarz
 |_)(_  | aka. speedsnail
 | \__) | mailto:roland.schwarz_at_[hidden]
________| http://www.blackspace.at