From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-06-10 22:38:16
on Sun Jun 10 2007, "Henrik Sundberg" <storangen-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
> 2007/6/7, Gennadiy Rozental <gennadiy.rozental_at_[hidden]>:
>> I put up a wiki page that presents initial version of my proposal
>> for boost development environment, testing and release procedures.
> Is the svn structure verified to work?
> Optional extensions/Combined tree as a reflection:
> To support the need for a single command update of several (all) boost
> libraries it might be convenient to create combined boost tree
> (similar to our current tree) using svn externals based reflections.
> lib1 -> lib1/trunk/boost/lib1
> lib1.hpp -> lib1/trunk/boost/lib1.hpp
> lib2 -> lib2/trunk/boost/lib2
> lib2.hpp -> lib2/trunk/boost/lib2.hpp
> lib3 -> lib3/trunk/boost/lib3
> lib3.hpp -> lib3/trunk/boost/lib3.hpp
> I agree that this is needed. But I don't think it works.
> "[A]n externals definition can only point to directories, not files."
> I.e. The hpp-externals above should not work.
> I think this means that to be able to place all hpp-files in the
> boost-directory, there should be a build step to put them there. I..e
> When building lib1, it should copy it's own headers to the Boost
> I don't know if that is good either. What happens if hpp-files are
> renamed? Will the old files not remain in the Boost directory?
> Is this a drawback in all proposals so far?
The way to handle this, IMO, is to:
a. move all headers into a library-specific subdirectories
b. for backward-compatibility purposes, keep minimalist forwarding
headers in the main distribution.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk