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

[Olaf van der Spek <Olaf@XWIS.Net>]

Steve M. Robbins wrote:
> 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.

Without knowing the amount of incompatibility between the two versions, 
it's hard to say.
That said, it's not necessary for both -dev packages to be 
co-installable to achieve that, right?

Even if you install both, can't you make sure the default is to use the 
one version without requiring build scripts to be modified?

> > > 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.
>
> Chimo,
> -Steve