Re: [Boost-cmake] Configuration for sonames for the boost dynamic libraries on Unix

Subject: Re: [Boost-cmake] Configuration for sonames for the boost dynamic libraries on Unix
From: troy d. straszheim (troy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-10-28 15:26:50

Denis ARNAUD wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> from what I understand by reading that thread 
> <http://lists.boost.org/boost-build/2008/04/18704.php> (title: "**Re: 
> [Boost-build] Help deciphering gcc.jam, please* 
> <http://lists.boost.org/boost-build/2008/04/18704.php>*", in April 2004 
> <http://lists.boost.org/boost-build/2008/04/index.php>) on the Boost 
> Developer mailing list archive, Boost libraries have sonames for dynamic 
> libraries on Unix, but those sonames do not follow (widely accepted) 
> naming conventions. For instance, the version number is not part of the 
> soname.
> 
> Would it be possible to have the option, with CMake build, to use a more 
> conventional soname, so that Linux distribution packagers (Debianers and 
> RPM-based packagers such as me, for instance) be happy (i.e., have less 
> extra code to write)?
> 

For sure it is.  Debian is my primary platform and I'd like this to be 
seamless.  I've pondered support for multiple simultaneous 
installations, possibly with a layout like this:

/usr/
   include/
     boost/
       1.40.0/
         boost/
           version.hpp
       1.41.0/
         boost/
           version.hpp

   lib/
     boost-1.40.0/
       libboost_mpi.so.1.40.0
       libboost_mpi.so.1.40 => libboost.mpi.so.1.40.0
       libboost_mpi.so => libboost.mpi.so.1.40
     boost-1.41.0/
       libboost_mpi.so.1.41.0

Is this reasonable, is there a standard way to do this, or am I just 
making things difficult?

Other things to think about:  pkg-config, and maybe the installation of 
cmake files in /usr/share/boost that makes it easy to detect/use the 
installation....   comments?

(also I have some fixes for the 1.40.0.cmake4 problems, they're in the 
works)

-t