On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 10:53:35PM +0200, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
Steve M. Robbins wrote:
If we do decide to have co-installable -dev packages, the next
question is how do we handle the current non-versioned includes and
link libraries? Do we follow what gcc and python do, providing a
defaults that change from time to time? Or should we not attempt to
provide such defaults? I fear the first option will bring us back to
the same misery we currently suffer with transitions. So I'm fine
with not providing defaults, which is in line with upstream practices
anyway.
What would that imply?
Would users have to modify the build script to add the Boost include
directory to the include path?
Likely, yes.
At the moment this is not necessary and I think requiring it is a bad
idea (for users that have to compile third-party code)
Noted. On the other hand, some might like the flexibility of deciding
which Boost version to build with, similar to the ability to choose
between Qt3 and Qt4.