Re: List of FTBFS in Ubuntu
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 10:38 PM, Roger Leigh <email@example.com> wrote:
>> Wouldn't this only happen on a major version change of the Boost package?
>> Thus requiring a recompile?
> This is hopefully what would happen. But there's no guarantee that
> this would be the case, and that's really down to whatever policy
> that the Boost developers have in place for API and ABI compatibility.
> We are only concerned with symbols in the compiled binaries, and if
> they are correctly linked so that all the symbols in the program are
> directly satisfied by their first-order dependencies.
> The encoding of Boost release numbers into their SONAME versioning
> is also part of the problem, since a recompile is unilaterally
> required with each major release, meaning there is zero effective
> binary compatibility between releases even if there are no changes.
Why is this a problem?
I don't see how a lot of the interfaces Boost provides could be done
with binary compatibility.
>> > Hope this explains where I'm coming from a bit better.
>> It does, a bit.
>> BTW, got my mail about auto linking?
> I saw it, yes. I'm not sure how MSVC implements auto-linking, but
> I would be concerned about the determinism of such behaviour,
> especially when a given symbol could be satisfied by a number of
> different libraries. For Boost, a given symbol might be satisfied
> by a number of different library versions which could be installed
> concurrently; how would you know which was the correct one?
The header knows what version it is, so it can use that to link to the