From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthias Fischer To: development@lists.ipfire.org Subject: Re: boost 1_58_0 - rootfile Date: Mon, 18 May 2015 20:16:49 +0200 Message-ID: <555A2C91.5080104@t-online.de> In-Reply-To: <1431942415.16602.6.camel@ipfire.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============5699024821129479953==" List-Id: --===============5699024821129479953== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 18.05.2015 11:46, Michael Tremer wrote: > Hi, > > On Sat, 2015-05-16 at 13:59 +0200, Matthias Fischer wrote: >> Hi, >> >> is there a specific reason for commenting the line >> >> ... >> #usr/lib/libboost_math_c99l.so.1.55.0 >> ... >> >> in rootfile for 'boost 1_55_0'? > > No. I must have overlooked that when I created that file. > >> All other '/usr/lib/libboost*'-files are uncommented, only this one is >> ~deactivated. >> >> This came to me while building an update to 'boost 1_58_0'. > > Updating boost requires to ship everything that is linked against it > again and you will need to have something that removes the old > libraries. This is seems to be more complex than I thought. How do I find which parts of IPFire are "linked against boost"? I can run 'ldd' against a binary to find which libraries it needs, but how to work the other way around? > An other strategy would be to leave the old libraries there and just > ship the new ones. Every time when something that uses boost is updated, > it will switch from using the old libraries to the new ones. If I get you right then in this case old and new libs are left in '/usr/lib'. Sounds more like some kind of 'patchwork', IMHO. Regards Matthias --===============5699024821129479953==--