[pkg-boost-devel] Bug#473752: Bug#473752: Bug#473752: Boost 1.35 has been released

Olaf van der Spek Olaf at XWIS.Net
Tue Apr 22 08:09:15 UTC 2008

Steve M. Robbins wrote:
> 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.

Without knowing the amount of incompatibility between the two versions, 
it's hard to say.
That said, it's not necessary for both -dev packages to be 
co-installable to achieve that, right?

Even if you install both, can't you make sure the default is to use the 
one version without requiring build scripts to be modified?

>>> 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

More information about the pkg-boost-devel mailing list