Subject: Re: [boost] [1.40.0] Release candidates available
From: Stefan Seefeld (seefeld_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-08-29 20:21:10
On 08/26/2009 02:51 PM, Vladimir Prus wrote:
> I agree that configuring Boost is becoming somewhat of a problem because:
> 1. Every library uses it's own custom convention for checking and reporting, and
> 2. No single document lists all the options.
This, to me, is just another indicator that boost would profit from
actually treating these as separate (sub-)projects. Let users configure
and build them independently, and merely provide a wrapper build script
that knows about the library interdependencies, and thus can help build
things in the right order (instead of having each library build assume
its prerequisites were already installed.
But I have been singing that song for years now, and no change is in
-- ...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