Rene Rivera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [2003-01-16] David Abrahams wrote:
>
>>Ulrich Eckhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> On Wednesday 15 January 2003 15:49, you wrote:
>>>> At 04:25 AM 1/15/2003, Steven Kirk wrote:
>>>> >windows. Judging by the naming convention used by the other current
> boost
>>>> >libraries, shouldn't this library be called "libboost_filesystem.lib"?
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I guess. I'll add it to the do list.
>>>>
>>> Isn't there a big flaw in that naming-convention ? It means I can't
> install a
>>> version compiled for different compilers due to their differing ABIs.
>>> Therefore, I'd rather go for
>>> libboost_<name>_<ABI-tag>-version.lib
>>> 'name' being 'filesystem' in this case and 'ABI-tag' an identifier for
> the
>>> compiler, possibly including the stdlib. (note: STLport already uses such
> a
>>> scheme, I'd prefer just stealing their ABI-tags if there are no good
> reasons
>>> to do otherwise).
>>
>>You're probably right. We don't have a system to do that right now,
>>but it's probably a pretty easy change.
>
> Not totally right... It should be:
>
> libboost_<name>_<API-tag>.lib.<version>
>
> Putting the version at the end is somewhat standard. And in my current case
> of OpenBSD required.
>
> I could easily do this in BBV1:
>
> lib<name>_<TOOLSET_NAME>.lib.<version>
>
> The "boost_<name>" part is up to the library authors. If no one has
> objections?
I have no objections, but it's not bulletproof. For example,
different versions of gcc have different ABIs, but unless the user has
installed a custom toolset definition, they will have the same name.
And there's no way to control which versions users will call plain old
"gcc".
--
David Abrahams
[EMAIL PROTECTED] * http://www.boost-consulting.com
Boost support, enhancements, training, and commercial distribution
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
