On Thu, June 18, 2009 10:07, Johannes Ring wrote: > On Thu, June 18, 2009 01:30, mspieg wrote: >> B) I've rebuilt boost (1.38 and 1.39) by hand just fine, but in >> general, there are a lot of possible variations on the naming of >> boost libraries (e.g. the default naming conventions for the >> libraries can include version and compiler information such as >> libboost_program_options-xgcc40-mt.dylib). It would be useful if >> the boost package generators were a bit more thorough in determining >> how to call things (maybe a bit of glob would help). > > Yes, the Boost pkg-config generator could be more robust. I can take a > look at it later.
I have looked at this now and I think it would be a mess to add support for all possible naming variations of the Boost libraries. I think a better approach is to suggest for people building Boost from source that they build Boost with the --layout=system option. This way the names of the Boost libraries does include the Boost version and the compiler version. Also, the header files are installed under $BOOST_DIR/include instead of $BOOST_DIR/include/boost-x_y. Johannes _______________________________________________ DOLFIN-dev mailing list DOLFIN-dev@fenics.org http://www.fenics.org/mailman/listinfo/dolfin-dev
