Vladimir Prus wrote:
Andrey Semashev wrote:
Recall, we're talking about --layout=system, which is explicitly meant for system integrators. So it's not a "small suffix", it is "incompatible with system naming of libraries". Is it? AFAIK, there are no specific requirements on the library name itself (by which I mean everything between 'lib' and '.so' or '.a'). It can be 'boost_filesystem' or 'boost_filesystem_mt' - I don't see much difference for packaging purpose.
There is zillion ways to compile any library, so this matter is not specific to boost. It is known that compiled versions of some Boost libraries have different ABI in ST and MT mode. But then, Boost is not one library of such kind. But why introduce the danger of misuse, especially when there is no such problem now?
The problem now is that names used by boost libraries don't follow system conventions, so a random user, to build against Boost, should use:
-lboost_filesystem-<bunch-on-random-tags>
No, just -lboost_filesystem-mt.
It is a big problem in practice.
Well, I guess that's subjective, but that 'mt' suffix is no problem for me, and I would rather have it in order not to mess with library name clashes.