Boost logo

Boost Interest :

From: Doug Gregor (doug.gregor_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-06-26 22:02:34

On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 8:00 PM, David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Doug Gregor wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 1:02 PM, troy d. straszheim <troy_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>> Personally I find the embedding of toolset and version in library names to
>>> be problematic... in this case it makes the FindBoost.cmake really
>>> complicated and binds the (what should be simple) business of using the
>>> libraries to details that are utterly irrelevant here.
>> While I, personally, agree with you, I just don't think this is
>> feasible. FindBoost is there so that people can use Boost from CMake,
>> and that includes using existing and future Boost releases that depend
>> on Boost.Build's mangled library names. I disagreed with the mangled
>> approach from the start, but we're stuck with it.
> Really? I must've missed something. What practical alternative did we
> have at the start,

Don't mangle library names. Those very few users who need to build
with multiple compilers will just keep separate build/install
directories. People have been doing this on Unix systems for many,
many years. It's simple and works very well. The library name-mangling
stuff we do causes these users a *huge* amount of complication.

> and if we didn't need it then, why can't we quit now?

I'm referring to the FindBoost.cmake module, which needs to deal with
Boost as it is deployed now, mangled library names and all.

For the CMake-based Boost build system, we could consider dropping the
idea of versioned libraries entirely. We've already decided not to
even attempt support for building with multiple compilers in a single
invocation. However, dropping versioned libraries means we won't be
producing the same things as bjam, so it could make the switch to
CMake harder.

  - Doug

Boost-cmake list run by bdawes at, david.abrahams at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at