Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [Modularization] A new approach to header modularization
From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-05-28 16:37:12

On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 5:35 AM, Lars Viklund <zao_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 01:06:47PM -0400, Beman Dawes wrote:
>> Unless I'm missing something, this is the only approach that appears to
>> do fairly well for all of the Goals/Objectives/Needs/Wants, and very
>> well for most of them. It would require some rework of scripts and other
>> setups that depend on the current organization of libs/..., but that
>> seems minor compared to the long-term benefits.
>> Comments?
> I wouldn't be surprised if the following installation procedure was
> common among users of the library:
> bjam stage to target/lib
> copy boost-1.xx.y/boost to target/include
> With the proposed reorg, the resulting include dir would be full of
> source and build gunk, and would force the builder to use `bjam install'
> instead, which produces lots of bulky intermediaries and takes ages to
> deploy the headers.

I don't see that as the worst thing in the world. Also, as we move to
installers with prebuilt binaries, the whole completion of the user
install problem changes.


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