From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-04-21 08:08:20
On Sunday 20 April 2008 12:54:12 Steve M. Robbins wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 07:14:23AM -0500, 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.
> In case these statements are percolating in the back of your mind, I'd
> like to de-emphasize #2. Removing the Boost version is useful if you
> want to have a single version at a time on the system. But I'm coming
> around to the idea that multiple Boost development environments is a
> useful thing. In that scenario, the current practice of versioning
> the link names and the includes directory is exactly right.
> On that note, I see that 1.34.1 installs includes into
> boost-1_34_1/boost, while 1.35.0 installs into boost-1_35/boost.
> Will 1.35.1 still use 1_35 or will it use 1_35_1?
Sorry for jumping in, but I would like the following:
1. Establish officially that version 1.M.N and 1.M.N+1 are binary
compatible, if compiled with the same compiler and compiler option.
2. Remove boost version from the part before the dot, in both the
file names and soname.
3. Generate libraries like libboost_qwerty.so.1.35.0 two links:
4. Use the soname of libboost_qwerty.so.1.35
This way, one can link with -llibboost_qwerty. Installation of 1.35.1
will be possible, and the already compiled application will use that
All the gcc ABI issues is the problem of Debian :-)
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