On Sat, May 03, 2008 at 12:15:39AM -0500, Steve M. Robbins wrote: > On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 01:14:45PM +0200, Domenico Andreoli wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 12:22:24AM -0500, Steve M. Robbins wrote: > > > > > > In contrast, the alternative strategy of having all the libfoo-dev > > > (1.34.1) packages conflict with libfoo1.35.0-dev packages has just a > > > single negative: that you can't develop simultaneously with 1.34.1 and > > > 1.35.0. On the positive side, however, you can install the 1.35 -devs > > > and the existing build scripts will work because the include path and > > > the simplified link library names are preserved. > > > > > > So unless anyone (Domenico?) has a strong preference for the > > > first option, I'm planning to pursue the second. > > > > second option, absolutely. > > Good. I'm planning to assume that the 1.35.x releases are all > approximately API-compatible, so I'm naming the packages > libboost-foo1.35-dev. Any objection to that? > > > My headache now is that there are 13 -dev packages in Boost. One > (libboost1.35-dev) contains 60+ header-only libraries, while the > others each contain 1 library that happens to build a shared object. > > This overhead creates a nonnegligible amount of complexity and > generates bugs (e.g. #457654, #478782). Is there any value to this > granularity? I can't see any. If there are no objections, I'm > leaning towards collapsing all the -dev packages into libboost1.35-dev > -- and rolling bcp into it, as well. I'll probably keep > libboost-python1.35-dev separate (with pyste rolled into it). > > Your thoughts? please, proceed. ciao, Domenico -----[ Domenico Andreoli, aka cavok --[ http://www.dandreoli.com/gpgkey.asc ---[ 3A0F 2F80 F79C 678A 8936 4FEE 0677 9033 A20E BC50
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature