On Wed, June 24, 2009 14:48, Johannes Ring wrote: > 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.
Sorry, there is a missing 'not' in the above sentence. It should read: This way the names of the Boost libraries does not 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 > _______________________________________________ DOLFIN-dev mailing list DOLFIN-dev@fenics.org http://www.fenics.org/mailman/listinfo/dolfin-dev