From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-05-25 18:32:26
christopher diggins <cdiggins_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>> 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.
Bandwidth is hardly as valuable as volunteer time, IMO.
> 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.
It would, unless you can figure out how to script it so it isn't.
> This release I am proposing could alos be promoted as a lightweight
> release without documentation or tests. Boost-lite?
A release without documentation? <shudder>
How will you discover which (header-only) libraries you have?
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting 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