Re: Getting libboost into testing
"Steve M. Robbins" <email@example.com> wrote:
> There's no real problem. What happened is that between 1.21
> (the first debian package) and 1.26 (the second debian package),
> upstream changed their build system from traditional "configure
> and make" to "jam".
I was just reading about that the other day... got to have been one of
the least impressive ideas I've ever seen. Everything they need, I think,
can be done with autoconf 2.50 and automake 1.5. I hesitate to recommend
libtool to any but the most dedicated of maintainers, but the latest CVS
version is coming along very well on the more popular platforms.
> In the process, some of the libraries stopped
> producing shared libs, and the libraries that *do* produce shared
> libs don't have SONAMEs attached to them.
Huh. I though every (ELF) shared library had a SONAME of some kind.
Guess I have some more reading to do.
> I have raised the issue on the boost mailing list, but they aren't
> impressed by the idea of SONAMES. If I can't get them to fix the
> build system, I will eventually do it myself and just use the package
> version for the SONAME: the boost developers don't appear to be
> willing to guarantee any compatibility between boost releases.
Not yet, at least. The idea seems to be cutting-edge development for
libraries, once they've passed the formal review process. I expect (well,
fervently hope) that they'll pay more attention to back-compat ideas like
SONAME once they start kicking out more stable releases.
If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater
than the animating contest for freedom, go home and leave us in peace. We seek
not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you;
and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen. - Samuel Adams