[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [pkg-boost-devel] Bug#473752: Bug#473752: Boost 1.35 has been released

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.

>> I also removed the Boost library version from the link library names.
>> However, reflecting upon what you say, I suppose we really prefer to
>> have version X-dev and version (X+1)-dev co-installable.  If so, we
>> would revert that change and adjust the rules accordingly.
> Is there documentation about the incompatibilities between 1.34 and 1.35?

No, not that I'm aware of.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: