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
>> don't. I would very much like a separate release which only contained
>> 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 list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk