Re: [Boost-users] Solving boost version issues

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-11-02 13:44:54

Daniel Krügler <dsp_at_[hidden]> writes:

> Hello,
>
> I apologize in advance, if this contribution is slightly off-topic, but
> I assume that the discussed problem is of general interest for most
> boost users.
>
> Not rarely one stumbles across the problem that even your most favourite
> 3rd party library has an implementation error, and you need a fix for
> that. And the good thing: Those highly motivated guys have already found
> the error and fixed it - in cvs.
> Well, that is actually all very fine, especially if you are able to 
> handle with cvs (who of the programmers can not?) and you could use this
> fixed version, but there remains one big problem: The 3rd party library
> has not been released and you want to prevent nasty effects, if your
> fixed version meets the older version - the have all the same lib names.
>
> OK, end of the scenario, I assume that I describe here a well-known and
> well-feared problem ;-)
> Actually everything is fine, besides...: I would like to modify the lib 
> names and which place would be more reasonable than the bjam configuration?
>
> First, because the described problem just hits me in the moment 
> concerning a boost fix and I would like to influence the current bjam, 
> such that all libraries are build as usual, but with an additional 
> user-defined (or even hard-coded(!) string constant (aka "build id") at 
> the end of each name. I have to confess that I have little experience 
> with bjam and I don't understand the way how I can modify the related 
> file(s) to reach the wanted effect: I can only assume that one has to 
> change the file Jamfile.v2, probably the "function" rule tag beginning
> with line 95.
>
> Please, is someone willing to help me in that situation?
>
> Second I would like to propose that the current bjam script is generally
> modified to allow the addition of such a user-defined build-id simply
> attached after the normal naming scheme described on
>
> http://boost.org/more/getting_started.html#Results
>
> libboost_date_time-gcc-mt-d-1_31-your_build_id.a
>
> with a new, to be defined bejam option, which allows such an addition.
>
> Sorry for the noise and thank you for your patience!

This looks like something you might find addressed more easily on the
boost-build list.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com