Hi,
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 07:18:22PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Roger Leigh (rle...@codelibre.net) [090830 19:13]:
> > On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 11:59:35AM -0500, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
> > > I'm open to suggestions. Perhaps the best way forward is to
> > > re-introduce an -mt variant name
* Roger Leigh (rle...@codelibre.net) [090830 19:13]:
> On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 11:59:35AM -0500, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
> > I'm open to suggestions. Perhaps the best way forward is to
> > re-introduce an -mt variant name as a symlink to the non-mt name. If
> > that's agreeable, I'll get it done
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 11:59:35AM -0500, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 02:04:18PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > * Roger Leigh (rle...@codelibre.net) [090830 11:09]:
>
> > > Is this change intentional, or just a bug in the 1.39 packaging?
> >
> > > Does this retain or break
Hi folks,
I apologize for the mess.
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 02:04:18PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> Hi,
>
> thanks for notifying us.
>
> * Roger Leigh (rle...@codelibre.net) [090830 11:09]:
> > /usr/share/doc/libboost-program-options1.39-dev/README.Debian
> > still lists '-lboost_program_opti
Hi,
thanks for notifying us.
* Roger Leigh (rle...@codelibre.net) [090830 11:09]:
> /usr/share/doc/libboost-program-options1.39-dev/README.Debian
> still lists '-lboost_program_options-mt' as the name to use,
> however.
>
> Is this change intentional, or just a bug in the 1.59 packaging?
> Does
Hi,
Boost used to contain regular library names without an -st or -mt
suffix to indicate building for single- or multi-threaded use.
Boost 1.57/58 (if not earlier) switched to only providing libraries
with an -mt suffix. This was fine, but did mean as an upstream I
was required to patch my packa
6 matches
Mail list logo
