From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-11-24 15:43:55
Rene Rivera <grafik.list_at_[hidden]> writes:
> 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.
That's what I thought you'd say. I like that.
> 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.
Not a big deal, IMO. On the other hand, I think the top-level
bjam files can be moved up one level to avoid duplication.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk