Boost logo

Boost :

From: Jeff Garland (jeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-05-25 11:24:46

Stefan Seefeld wrote:
> 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:
>> boost_1_34_0
>> boost_some_new_lib1
>> boost_some_new_lib2
> 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.

Hadn't even thought of these issues, but they are good points. I was thinking
of the case where I didn't even have subversion for the core boost, but an
official distribution.

>> 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
>> system.
> 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).

Totally agree.


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