Hi there, many moons ago we had a discussion about how to tell users about build flags necessary to build software that uses boost libraries. Was there any consensus about how to do that ? Let me briefly resume the problem I'm facing. I'm writing software that uses boost libraries (boost.python, boost.wave, etc.). I'v been working with current snapshots, which provide libraries such as libboost_python-gcc-mt-1_33.so. However, I can't hardcode that name into my build scripts, as at some point after boost 1.33 gets officially released, I may take a boost package provided by the OS distributor I'm using. Chances are high that the boost libraries will be named differently then, i.e. instead of libboost_python-gcc-mt-1_33.so I will get 'libboost_python.so'. There are many more issues, which we already discussed in detail (library dependencies, required compilation flags, etc., etc.). The real problem is that this situation requires some cooperation between boost developers and boost packagers, or else the burden of figuring out all these details falls on the user. Thus I think it would be great for boost to provide some kind of table that users can inspect to figure out all the metainfo about the libraries they need. This table would be created in a transparent way that encourages packagers to recreate it to reflect the way they package boost. As I'm working mostly with unix, a natural candidate for such a table is 'pkg-config' (an option that was suggested before), but I can see some developers not wanting to use any specific tool. An alternative would be to develop a boost-specific tool that then becomes part of every boost package, and which users can query such as 'which additional libraries do I need to link with when using library 'XYZ' ?' etc. However, that tool should be neutral, i.e. while it should be able to provide all the data required to build software with boost, it must not assume any particular build system (make, bjam, scons, whatever). Is there any work done in this direction ? Thanks, Stefan