[2003-01-16] David Abrahams wrote:
>Ulrich Eckhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> On Wednesday 15 January 2003 15:49, you wrote:
>>> At 04:25 AM 1/15/2003, Steven Kirk wrote:
>>> >windows. Judging by the naming convention used by the other current
boost
>>> >libraries, shouldn't this library be called "libboost_filesystem.lib"?
>>>
>>> Yes, I guess. I'll add it to the do list.
>>>
>> Isn't there a big flaw in that naming-convention ? It means I can't
install a
>> version compiled for different compilers due to their differing ABIs.
>> Therefore, I'd rather go for
>> libboost_<name>_<ABI-tag>-version.lib
>> 'name' being 'filesystem' in this case and 'ABI-tag' an identifier for
the
>> compiler, possibly including the stdlib. (note: STLport already uses such
a
>> scheme, I'd prefer just stealing their ABI-tags if there are no good
reasons
>> to do otherwise).
>
>You're probably right. We don't have a system to do that right now,
>but it's probably a pretty easy change.
Not totally right... It should be:
libboost_<name>_<API-tag>.lib.<version>
Putting the version at the end is somewhat standard. And in my current case
of OpenBSD required.
I could easily do this in BBV1:
lib<name>_<TOOLSET_NAME>.lib.<version>
The "boost_<name>" part is up to the library authors. If no one has
objections?
-- grafik - Don't Assume Anything
-- [EMAIL PROTECTED] - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- 102708583@icq
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
