On Wed, June 24, 2009 14:48, Johannes Ring wrote:
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.
Sorry, there is a missing 'not' in the above sentence. It should read:
This way the names of the Boost libraries does not 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
_______________________________________________
DOLFIN-dev mailing list
DOLFIN-dev@xxxxxxxxxx
http://www.fenics.org/mailman/listinfo/dolfin-dev
_______________________________________________
DOLFIN-dev mailing list
DOLFIN-dev@xxxxxxxxxx
http://www.fenics.org/mailman/listinfo/dolfin-dev