Boost logo

Boost :

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

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at