Re: [boost] Re: Customer Friendlier Boost Installation

From: christopher diggins (cdiggins_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-05-25 15:16:13

>> Unfortunately some libraries are not header only and there is easy way to
>> tell which libraries require separate compilation / linking steps and 
>> which
>> don't. I would very much like a separate release which only contained 
>> header
>> only libraries.
>
> Don't you think assembling a separate release of boost just so you can
> tell which libraries need to be compiled is a bit of a heavyweight
> approach?  Seems to me a little documentation should be sufficient.

If there are a significant number of advanced users who, like myself, only 
use the header-only libraries, it would mean that there would be an overall 
saving of bandwidth. This also would include people doing casual downloads, 
such as curious newbies. So in that case I would not consider it to be a 
heavyweight approach, unless creating such a release would be a substantial 
amount of work for the release manager. This release I am proposing could 
alos be promoted as a lightweight release without documentation or tests. 
Boost-lite?

Christopher Diggins
http://www.cdiggins.com