Re: [boost] Directory structure not quite right yet?

Subject: Re: [boost] Directory structure not quite right yet?
From: Peter Dimov (lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-01-01 16:02:16

> I say that -I C:\boost-1.57.0\include is better and more consistent with 
> expectations.

In addition, it also makes more sense even on its own. It's more consistent 
for "b2 headers" to create a "virtual" directory $BOOST/include from the 
contents of $BOOST/libs/*/include; putting the contents of 
$BOOST/libs/*/include into $BOOST doesn't seem right.

This would have been obvious if we had headers in libs/*/include, but since 
these directories always have their headers in a boost/ subdirectory, "b2 
headers" puts nothing directly into $BOOST, so it works fine. Still, I can't 
think of any reason of insisting upon the current structure.

Yes, "b2 install" will put things in their proper place (on Linux), and yes, 
even without "b2 install" I can easily symlink /usr/include/boost to 
$BOOST/boost (on Linux), so it doesn't actually hurt (on Linux).

On Windows, one typical use is to unpack the Boost distribution into its 
final location and just b2 stage (without b2 install). Which works fine, and 
b2 then says, please add $BOOST to your include path and $BOOST/stage/lib to 
your library path. Which also works fine, except that first thing should, in 
my opinion, be $BOOST/include.

What are the benefits of not putting the headers into include/? None as far 
as I can see.