On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 03:43:35PM -0500, Steve M. Robbins wrote: > On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 12:20:39PM +0200, Domenico Andreoli wrote: > > > I think new and separate boost-1.35 package is the best option we have: > > > > 1. It may be uploaded now and released with lenny without touching > > any reverse dependency > > 2. Never more huge transitions, reverse dependencies take 1.35 as > > they like > > I think we might as well support multiple boost versions. As you > point out, there is a big advantage in not forcing a transition each > time Boost releases. > > The remaining question is whether we support co-installation of > multiple -dev packages. The fact that Boost upstream *does* support > this -- by embedding the boost version into both the link library and > the include directory names -- makes me lean towards this option.
... but now that I've thought a little harder, I've realized it brings several negatives: * The simplified link library names (i.e. -lboost_wave rather than -lboost_wave-gcc42-1_35) are difficult to manage. I can think of a couple of poor options: drop them completely; or use alternatives. * Ditto for the simplified include directory structure: /usr/include/boost rather than /usr/include/boost-1_35/boost. * The tools "bcp" and "pyste" suffer from a similar problem: they are currently installed into /usr/bin. For these tools to coexist in 1.34.1 and 1.35.0 versions, they'd need a suffix added, or the like. 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. Thanks, -Steve
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
