On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 8:00 PM, David Abrahams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Doug Gregor wrote: >> On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 1:02 PM, troy d. straszheim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >>> Personally I find the embedding of toolset and version in library names to >>> be problematic... in this case it makes the FindBoost.cmake really >>> complicated and binds the (what should be simple) business of using the >>> libraries to details that are utterly irrelevant here. >> >> While I, personally, agree with you, I just don't think this is >> feasible. FindBoost is there so that people can use Boost from CMake, >> and that includes using existing and future Boost releases that depend >> on Boost.Build's mangled library names. I disagreed with the mangled >> approach from the start, but we're stuck with it. > > Really? I must've missed something. What practical alternative did we > have at the start,
Don't mangle library names. Those very few users who need to build with multiple compilers will just keep separate build/install directories. People have been doing this on Unix systems for many, many years. It's simple and works very well. The library name-mangling stuff we do causes these users a *huge* amount of complication. > and if we didn't need it then, why can't we quit now? I'm referring to the FindBoost.cmake module, which needs to deal with Boost as it is deployed now, mangled library names and all. For the CMake-based Boost build system, we could consider dropping the idea of versioned libraries entirely. We've already decided not to even attempt support for building with multiple compilers in a single invocation. However, dropping versioned libraries means we won't be producing the same things as bjam, so it could make the switch to CMake harder. - Doug _______________________________________________ Boost-cmake mailing list Boost-cmake@lists.boost.org http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-cmake
