Re: [boost] Start separating mandatory source?

From: Daryle Walker (darylew_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-08-22 09:40:57

On 8/22/05 9:12 AM, "David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> Daryle Walker <darylew_at_[hidden]> writes:
> 
>> On 8/19/05 10:31 AM, "David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> 
>>> Daryle Walker <darylew_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>> 
>> [SNIP]
>>>> Besides the caveats, you can just dump all the mandatory source code into
>>>> your IDE's project file (or make file) and don't worry Boost-Build.
>>> 
>>> It isn't true.  Some libraries need specific compiler/linker options
>>> on specific platforms.
>> [SNIP]
>> 
>> Maybe we should consider that (and the separate DLL thing) to be a bug?
> 
> So you're giving me a choice between admitting there's a bug in my
> build specification or having my library fail to build on some
> platform?

I didn't know about the specific-options requirement.  I feel we should
strive for our code to work without tweaks (but still be compatible with
tweaks that the user may add).  I guess there's no way around it.

What build specification are you referring to?

>>> Whatever you think of Boost.Build, I don't see how underkill can work,
>>> and I don't see how libs/xxx/src/... is much worse than src/xxx/...
>> 
>> If the source files are in one location, it's easier to find out if a *.hpp
>> file has corresponding source.  The user otherwise has to dig through a lot
>> of directories and/or documentation.
> 
> Which source file corresponds to a header is not something that should
> usually be of concern to our users, and even when it is, it isn't
> worth reorganizing the Boost project structure for.

It is a concern if the user adds Boost sources to his/her project file
directly (instead of linking to a library pre-built by our scripts).  I
think if we _require_ Bjam, Boost.Build, or similar to use Boost, then we
have failed.

-- 
Daryle Walker
Mac, Internet, and Video Game Junkie
darylew AT hotmail DOT com