Subject: Re: [boost] [1.40.0] Release candidates available
From: Vladimir Prus (vladimir_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-08-30 01:55:51
Stefan Seefeld wrote:
> 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.
I fail to see how this will help. If there are 90 different documents,
one for each library, possibly describing how to configure it, then
users wishing to build "all of Boost" will have to read 90 different
> But I have been singing that song for years now, and no change is in
> sight. :-(
Unfortunately, you keep on saying this in so vague words, that I still
don't understand what you mean. Would you mind writing down a set of
concrete changes to the build process that you propose?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk