> > [Roger Leigh] > > I have brought this up with upstream. Please see the thread here: > > > > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.user/28950 > > > > and the bug report here: > > > > http://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/1094 > > > > Apparently, the library naming scheme on Linux should be > > layout=system, which uses the simple and expected naming > > scheme.
I don't believe that is the concensus view. I think Neal Becker got it right [http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.devel/162674] I think typically linux distros want the version, but not the 'gcc41' part. We really do need to allow multiple versions, as is common practice with other shared libs on linux systems. Since multiple compilers are uncommon, distros normally ignore that. The trouble with --layout=system is that it completely strips the boost version from the library SONAME. Doing that will cause much more grief after an upgrade (because Boost doesn't maintain ABI) than the current crisis. But what is the "simple and expected naming scheme" to which you refer? Built using --layout=system, I find libboost_signals.so and libboost_signals-mt.so whereas the current Debian install has libboost_signals-st.so and libboost_signals-mt.so Notwithstanding the extra "-st" (which I don't think is a good idea), I think Debian's scheme is just fine. Is it the extra "-st" that is bugging you? Thanks, -Steve
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
