Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Bug#541133: libboost-filesystem1.39-dev: cannot find -lboost_filesystem-mt

53 views
Skip to first unread message

Olaf van der Spek

unread,
Aug 11, 2009, 5:10:07 PM8/11/09
to
Package: libboost-filesystem1.39-dev
Version: 1.39.0-1
Severity: normal

Hi,

> cannot find -lboost_filesystem-mt

Where did this lib go?
If the -mt (and -st) versions got removed, shouldn't symlinks be provided?

Greetings,

Olaf

-- System Information:
Debian Release: squeeze/sid
APT prefers unstable
APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'testing'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)

Kernel: Linux 2.6.30-1-amd64 (SMP w/1 CPU core)
Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash

Versions of packages libboost-filesystem1.39-dev depends on:
ii libboost-filesystem1.39.0 1.39.0-1 filesystem operations (portable pa
ii libboost-system1.39-dev 1.39.0-1 Operating system (e.g. diagnostics
ii libboost1.39-dev 1.39.0-1 Boost C++ Libraries development fi

libboost-filesystem1.39-dev recommends no packages.

libboost-filesystem1.39-dev suggests no packages.

-- no debconf information

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org

Steve M. Robbins

unread,
Aug 26, 2009, 12:10:07 AM8/26/09
to
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 10:58:08PM +0200, Olaf van der Spek wrote:

> > cannot find -lboost_filesystem-mt
>
> Where did this lib go?

Upstream changed the library names.

> If the -mt (and -st) versions got removed, shouldn't symlinks be provided?

Arguably, yes. I can understand that it is a nuisance to have
software suddenly stop compiling.

On the other hand, if Debian continued to support these variant names,
we'd be out-of-step with other linux distributions and we might have
people developing under Debian complaining that other distributions
can't compile their code. We've been in that situation before and
it turned out to be a headache for us (the Boost maintainers).

So I'd rather not create symlinks.

-Steve

signature.asc

Olaf van der Spek

unread,
Aug 26, 2009, 4:30:12 AM8/26/09
to
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 5:57 AM, Steve M. Robbins<st...@sumost.ca> wrote:
> Arguably, yes.  I can understand that it is a nuisance to have
> software suddenly stop compiling.
>
> On the other hand, if Debian continued to support these variant names,
> we'd be out-of-step with other linux distributions and we might have
> people developing under Debian complaining that other distributions
> can't compile their code.  We've been in that situation before and
> it turned out to be a headache for us (the Boost maintainers).
>
> So I'd rather not create symlinks.

Does stable have the variants without suffix? If not, different libs
are needed in stable and testing which I think isn't acceptable.
Stuff should first be deprecated in a release, then it can be removed
in the next one.

Olaf

0 new messages