Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: boost https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225622 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus@xxxxxxx 2007-04-10 08:47 EST ------- (In reply to comment #9) > 1) why not use boost-jam for install? > > It provides no advantage when we are doing staged builds, and also doesn't work > with prefix. In addition, it doesn't get the permissions correct. I'm not quite > sure why the permissions are incorrect in rpmlint considering they are > explicitly set by install to be the correct values. Any hacking by others in > this area would be appreciated. I added a comment in my spec patch summarizing your point. > 2) soname > > What upstream boost does with soname is dubious IMHO. In particular, boost libs > should not change SONAMES based on gcc versions if gcc versions are compat. Ie, > gcc-3.4, gcc-4.0, gcc-4.1 are compat. If using upstream boost versioning, they > are not. > > In general, there is no ABI checking in upstream boost. Fedora does not have > this luxury. > > Mostly, they leave this as a decision for vendors, one of whom is Fedora. The > plan WRT Fedora is to provide some guidance for people using older boosts that > are not ABI-compat with current boost. Thus the soname bump. I don't understand exactly what you are meaning. With the current patcheset, and without changing soname, the soname version used is the boost version. This seems to be right, if you are saying that "Fedora does not have the luxury to check the boost ABI change", since it means that the soname has to be changed for every boost release. In that case the library name could be like libboost_python.so.1.33.1 the soname would be libboost_python.so.1.33.1 and there would be a so link in devel libboost_python.so pointing to libboost_python.so.1.33.1 You may also be saying the reverse, namely that you check the ABI compatibility and you don't break ABI for each release, that's why you need a soname version that don't use the boost version, but instead an integer you bump only when there has been an ABI change. Is is the case? (As a side note, even without boost-base.patch applied the gcc version isn't hardcoded in the soname. The soname is like: libboost_python-gcc-1_33_1.so.1.33.1 (or libboost_python-gcc-1_33_1.so.2 with <sonameversion>2 and my patch or, I guess, the previous patch).) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review