Hi, On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 10:04:26PM -0600, Steve M. Robbins wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 01:15:31PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote: > > > > The solution is to keep the names decorated with both python versions, > > but to maintain a farm of symbolic links pointing to the current python > > version. As Steve noted, you don???t need one for the runtime libs, but > > for the .a and the .so symlink that are used at build time, this is > > required. > > OK, both you and Bernd suggested rtupdate. Bernd even pointed me to a > description of it [1]; thanks. Let me see if I understand your > proposal. > > The idea is to create a single -dev package that contains the > following in /usr/lib: > > libboost_python-py24-gcc42-1_34_1.so > libboost_python-py24-gcc42-1_34_1.a > > libboost_python-py25-gcc42-1_34_1.so > libboost_python-py25-gcc42-1_34_1.a > > The -dev package contains an rtupdate script to create the following > symlinks (also in /usr/lib): > > libboost_python-gcc42-1_34_1.so > libboost_python-gcc42-1_34_1.a > > Does that sound right?
It may sound even better if multiple Boost versions were considered, packaging them in versioned source packages (ie boost-1.34.1, boost-1.35.0). Respective -dev packages should then be also versioned and conflicting each other, as the mostly undecorated symlinks there provided. Having boost-defaults driving the default Boost and Python versions and the completely undecorated symlinks. This, for instance, would allow Boost 1.35.0 in lenny while 1.34.1 being the default one. I frankly doubt a full transition to 1.35.0 would happen before the release of lenny. Ciao, Domenico -----[ Domenico Andreoli, aka cavok --[ http://www.dandreoli.com/gpgkey.asc ---[ 3A0F 2F80 F79C 678A 8936 4FEE 0677 9033 A20E BC50 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]