[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

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
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.


Reply to: