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

Steve M. Robbins steve at sumost.ca
Sat May 3 05:15:39 UTC 2008

On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 01:14:45PM +0200, Domenico Andreoli wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 12:22:24AM -0500, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
> > 
> > In contrast, the alternative strategy of having all the libfoo-dev
> > (1.34.1) packages conflict with libfoo1.35.0-dev packages has just a
> > single negative: that you can't develop simultaneously with 1.34.1 and
> > 1.35.0.  On the positive side, however, you can install the 1.35 -devs
> > and the existing build scripts will work because the include path and
> > the simplified link library names are preserved.
> > 
> > So unless anyone (Domenico?) has a strong preference for the
> > first option, I'm planning to pursue the second.
> second option, absolutely.

Good.  I'm planning to assume that the 1.35.x releases are all
approximately API-compatible, so I'm naming the packages
libboost-foo1.35-dev.  Any objection to that?

My headache now is that there are 13 -dev packages in Boost.  One
(libboost1.35-dev) contains 60+ header-only libraries, while the
others each contain 1 library that happens to build a shared object.

This overhead creates a nonnegligible amount of complexity and
generates bugs (e.g. #457654, #478782).  Is there any value to this
granularity?  I can't see any.  If there are no objections, I'm
leaning towards collapsing all the -dev packages into libboost1.35-dev
-- and rolling bcp into it, as well.  I'll probably keep
libboost-python1.35-dev separate (with pyste rolled into it).

Your thoughts?


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-boost-devel/attachments/20080503/c3a8d820/attachment.pgp 

More information about the pkg-boost-devel mailing list