On Sat, May 19, 2007 at 06:01:08PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote: > I would be interested to see how to make it portable. I did a build > of the upstream source to see, and I get:
[ ... a gajillion library files ... ] > This is awful. [...] > This is really another bug report to file, but could I suggest: > > - Dropping the '-gcc41' suffix. > > - Dropping all of the .a libraries. Static libraries are pretty > useless on a modern GNU/Linux system, and just take up space. > > I think upstream's practice of providing four variants of the same > library (st/mt and debug/release) is not good practice, at least on > GNU/Linux. Would it be possible to bring up these issues with > upstream? I share your horror, Roger, but the upstream developers do have their reasons for building every combination and for encoding each option into the resulting library name. Partly, this stems from a design goal to be cross-platform which implies a naming scheme compatible with windows conventions as well as unix's. If you're going to suggest changes, you should be at least familiar with the upstream reasoning and be prepared to address those concerns. It wouldn't be fair to cross-platform boost-using code for Debian to change the upstream library names, causing them to require Debian-specific build configuration code. I think the practice of providing convenience symlinks with a "more unixy" convention is a suitable compromise. It's now clear, however, that a better attempt should be made to let Debian users know that it is a Debian (or perhaps Linux?) convention. With regards to static libs, I think you are stretching a point to suggest that they are no longer needed. I really don't want you to make that decision for me, thanks all the same. ;-) Sorry that I don't have any concrete suggestion for you and your autoconf macro. I do agree that something ought to be done, preferably with cooperation from upstream -- or at least across linux distributions. Cheers, -Steve
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
