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. >> 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
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
