From: John Maddock (John_Maddock_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-10-07 06:53:43
Interesting message, I find myself agreeing with every point :-)
One thing is clear - boost has grown rapidly recently and is likely to
continue to do so, we need to sort this out before it gets out of hand.
>--> RECOMENDATION: Add some license verbage that says who is allowed to
> use boost, and for what.
This is difficult for the reasons others have stated, however I see no
reason why we can't have a licence file stating the minimum guarentees made
by all boost libraries (free for commercial use etc). This would act as a
first point of contact for potential commercial users, actually maybe we
could make it licence.htm and provide links to individual library licences.
>3. There's no makefiles. I initially thought that was weird, but then
>realized that there is no portable way to make C++ librarie. So I don't
>have a specific question/recomendation here, but it leads into my next
Interesting, some people are very opposed to any kind of makefiles (never
mind autoconf) being present.
One thing we really need is a better directory structure, this has come up
before, but was never acted on. As the least line of resistance, how about
a src/ sub-directory for all the files that need to be built in order to
use the headers, probably split into sub-directories like libs/ is. That
would leave libs/ for docs, examples and test programs.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk