From: Jens Maurer (Jens.Maurer_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-12-13 13:29:23
David Abrahams wrote:
> From: "Jens Maurer" <Jens.Maurer_at_[hidden]>
> > Lois' suggestion seems to entail that there are header files mixed
> > with subdirectories (containing implementation .cpp) in several levels
> > of the directory structure. I would consider this sub-optimal.
The boost/ subdirectory would look like this:
This has twice the amount of directory entries than the
current scheme under libs/. We currently have 21 subdirectories
under libs/, and I expect that number to grow. I would
prefer the number of subdirectory entries in libs/ (or boost/) to
grow with n and not with 2*n.
I do think that splitting large headers into smaller parts and
also providing an "all-in-all" header is a good idea. (I need to
do that with my random number library.)
Probably we should leave the idea that the distributed boost directory
structure can be used as-is and start having a minimal install
procedure. As a first step until we get a decent build system,
we could have a script which copies (or symlinks) all *.hpp files
from each library's include/ subdirectory to the boost/ include
directory. Probably python is the appropriate tool for that.
Note that we already have several libraries whose object files
need to be linked in (i.e. are not headers-only), so an installation
step is necessary anyway, in general.
If we would like to keep the current contents of the boost/
directory, Beman could run the copy script before creating the
release .zip file. People using the CVS version are considered
more knowledgeable and thus can call the script themselves.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk