From: Stefan Seefeld (seefeld_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-05-25 11:13:51
Jeff Garland wrote:
> It sounds like the sandbox libs will eventually become branches of the main
> repository, so that would entrench the practice of embedding these libraries
> into an existing tree. Personally I'd prefer to have something where I can
> keep a pristine distribution and then add new libs by having them in their own
> tree -- something like:
I totally agree. Having to branch the whole boost tree in order to add a new
project seems very redundant (in different ways). For one, it requires me
manually tracking changes in the trunk/, even if my own work is only kept
in a (new) subtree.
It's also redundant since users who want to try a sandbox project would
essentially need to store (and build !) a separate boost source and build
tree just for the sandbox project.
> But to build and run the tests/examples in these 'one library trees' means
> that you'd need to have a way to specify the base distribution to the build
Indeed. But that appears to me to be a good idea anyways. We were discussing
ways to modularize boost better. Being able to compile specific boost libs
in isolation, while referring / using a separate external boost tree for dependencies
seemed to be a worthwhile goal (say, for more modular testing).
-- ...ich hab' noch einen Koffer in Berlin...
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk