Re: [boost] Customer Friendlier Boost Installation

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-07-05 14:09:23

Andrey Melnikov <melnikov_at_[hidden]> writes:

> David Abrahams wrote:
>> 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.
>
> I think that splitting Boost in boost-hdronly and boost-libs will
> help a lot.

Help with what?

> There are a lot of thread or filesystem abstraction layers. But such
> unique libs like boost.lambda and MPL are header only, and can be
> used very easily without building bjam etc. 

Almost nobody needs to build bjam, since we provide prebuilt
executables.

Also, you can use those libraries very easily from a full package
without building bjam.

> It would be nice to have a separate package.

Undoubtedly it would be nice.  Are you volunteering to prepare and
maintain it?  Would you include or exclude documentation?  What about
tests? What about examples?

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com