dolfin team mailing list archive

["Johannes Ring" <johannr@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, June 18, 2009 10:07, Johannes Ring wrote:
> On Thu, June 18, 2009 01:30, mspieg wrote:
>> 	B) I've rebuilt boost (1.38 and 1.39) by hand just fine, but in
>> general, there are a lot of possible variations on the naming of
>> boost libraries (e.g. the default naming conventions for the
>> libraries can include version and  compiler information such as
>> libboost_program_options-xgcc40-mt.dylib).  It would be useful if
>> the boost package generators were a bit more thorough in determining
>> how to call things (maybe a bit of glob would help).
>
> Yes, the Boost pkg-config generator could be more robust. I can take a
> look at it later.

I have looked at this now and I think it would be a mess to add support
for all possible naming variations of the Boost libraries. I think a
better approach is to suggest for people building Boost from source that
they build Boost with the --layout=system option. This way the names of
the Boost libraries does include the Boost version and the compiler
version. Also, the header files are installed under $BOOST_DIR/include
instead of $BOOST_DIR/include/boost-x_y.

Johannes