From: Rene Rivera (grafik.list_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-11-24 11:22:54
Any comments on this from the Boost Sandbox admins, or anyone?
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Boost Sandbox layout?
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 18:41:58 -0600
David Abrahams wrote:
> Rene Rivera <grafik.list_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>Was there ever a discussion as to the layout? (A cursory search did
>>not reveal anything)
> I like what I _think_ you're suggesting we actually should do, but
> would you mind spelling it out for everyone's benefit?
I was trying not to prejudice the conversation if there was already
reasons for the current layout... But since you ask :-)
I think it would more beneficial to have each library in an individual
sub directory of the boost-sandbox. Each library would still be required
to follow the regular Boost layout within itself. For example I'm
putting together the warnings submission and it would be nice to set it
up like this:
Having the isolated subdir would remove the 3 drawbacks I mentioned. But
itself has some drawbacks:
1) Some of the setup files would be duplicated. Like the boost.png,
Jamfile, Jamrules, and boost-build.jam at the "top" level. But at the
same time it means that the library would be truly standalone.
2) An eventual long list of directories right at the top.
One advantage is the reduce complexity of management by the library
authors. As it would be much easier to do things like remove a library
from the sandbox after it's been accepted into Boost, a single recursive
cvs remove and commit instead of finding all the files and dirs.
It might even be possible to setup some form of script automation to
make snapshots of the individual libraries automatically available
(without CVS access).
-- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com - 102708583/icq
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk