Boost logo

Boost :

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.

- John.

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at