Subject: Re: [boost] [Modularization] A new approach to header modularization
From: Christopher Jefferson (chris_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-06-03 14:37:08
On 3 Jun 2009, at 15:10, Vladimir Prus wrote:
>> In summation, I think the biggest problem I've had with boost is in
>> the 'small simple problems' category. Two suggestions:
>> 1) I've seen some systems provide a script which can be executed
>> g++ my_file ` boostdefs --include --library `
>> Which produce the appropriate flags. Exactly how should a system
>> should work is of course up for debate.
> There were proposals to add pkg-config generation. However, pkg-
> config is fairly
> limited tool ...
> then your project will not build if single-threaded version of Boost
> is not
> installed, and we're back to 'how to make my project to build'. I
> believe that on Linux, using --layout=system by default is the right
> On Windows, there are some reasons to build several variants with
> fancy naming,
> but there, autolink just handles everything.
I hadn't looked at --layout=system. That looks like exactly how I
would like things to be. While some users might want more complicated
layouts, I think making the default do the simple, obvious thing is a
>> 2) Why not provide a 'libboost' which includes all the libraries
>> linked together. If they are dynamically linked this shouldn't create
>> a large overhead.
> This is interesting idea -- and easily implementable on Linux.
> Anybody wishes
> to comment? I am not sure if this is possible/reasonable on Windows.
> - Volodya
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk