[Bug 227939] devel/boost-python-libs vs ctypes.util.find_library

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
1 message Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Bug 227939] devel/boost-python-libs vs ctypes.util.find_library

bugzilla-noreply
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227939

Jan Beich <[hidden email]> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Flags|maintainer-feedback?(office |maintainer-feedback+
                   |@FreeBSD.org)               |

--- Comment #6 from Jan Beich <[hidden email]> ---
(In reply to Kubilay Kocak from comment #3)
> - Fix ports that don't install symlinks to do so

.so.X.Y -> .so symlink is required by ld(1) but why do we need .so.X.Y -> .so.X
or .so.X.Y.Z -> .so.X.Y -> .so.X as well? According to semantic versioning[1]
major version bump is only required for incompatible changes. Boost breaks
API/ABI on each minor release where API incompatibility is minor (i.e., few
breaking changes) but ABI has no guarantees at all. As SONAME already encodes
.so.X.Y.Z there's nothing to fix in Boost.

For one, find_library() works fine on CentOS 7 without .so.X.Y.Z -> .so.X
symlink.

$ ls -1 /usr/lib64/libboost_python*
/usr/lib64/libboost_python-mt.so.1.53.0
/usr/lib64/libboost_python.so.1.53.0

>>> find_library("boost_python")
'libboost_python.so.1.53.0'

[1] https://semver.org/

--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-office
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"