BOOST C++ Framework [PSARC/2008/752]

[Stefan Teleman]

Rainer Orth wrote:
> John Fischer <John.Fischer at sun.com> writes:
> 
>> This project proposes to include the BOOST C++ Framework within 
>> a Minor release of Solaris.  BOOST allows for Parallel versions 
>> to be installed on a system.  This project will install BOOST
>> into /usr/include/boost/<Major>.<Minor>.<Micro> and /usr/lib
>> with the library SONAME corresponding to the Major/Minor/Micro
>> name scheme.  BOOST depends upon the previous Standard C++ Library
>> provided by the platform specific C++ Compliation and Run-Time 
>> Environment.
> 
> shouldn't this be part of the proposal proper?  I think at least the
> detailed library names belong there.

Detailed library names, with API documentation are clearly indicated in the ARC 
Materials (documentation). There is a chapter for each and every BOOST Library.

> Besides, is it really necessary to use
> Major/Minor/Micro in the SONAMEs? 

Yes, because this is the software construction mechanism devised by the BOOST 
Developers, and it is the mechanism currently followed by every single 
distribution of BOOST.

Half of BOOST libraries don't even have a SONAME, because they aren't delivered 
as shared library objects, but as header + source files.

I'd be interested in learning why we (SMI) should deviate from mainstream.

> Do the libraries really change incompatibly with every micro release? 

Given that BOOST has taken considerable care in designing a construction and 
delivery mechanism which permits non-conflicting coexistence of several versions 
of BOOST, this seems to have been done for the purpose of avoiding [ mitigating 
] incompatibilities between BOOST releases.

--Stefan

-- 
Stefan Teleman
Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Stefan.Teleman at Sun.COM