Subject: Re: [boost] New boost packaging suggestion for windows
From: troy d. straszheim (troy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-11-05 15:36:36
Steven Watanabe wrote:
> Eric Niebler wrote:
>> Steven Watanabe wrote:
>>> troy d. straszheim wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 9:08 PM, David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]>
>>>>>> I'm hoping Troy can give us a public report on the modularization
>>>>>> effort. Troy?
>>>> I suppose a picture is worth a thousand words:
>>>> Please stop reading now and look at that. Look for cycles and
>>>> dependencies that don't seem to make sense.
>>> I actually don't see /very/ much there that doesn't make sense.
>> I do. Why does spirit depend on xpressive?
> AFAICT it doesn't now. This may be an artifact from when
> proto lived under xpressive?
>> Why does xpressive depend on intrusive?
> Again it doesn't directly. I have no idea why this dependency appears.
>> And why *doesn't* proto depend on mpl?
> The graph displayed is incomplete. proto depends on fusion which
> depends on
> function_type which depends on mpl.
>> These are just the first three things I checked. :-P
Right you are. Links to new versions and tabular format included.
Feeling shamed into redoing it, I wrote a script that assumes that if
file boost/X/F.hpp includes file boost/Y/f.hpp, then project X depends
on Y. For toplevel files, if a file boost/K.hpp exists as well as a
directory boost/K, then an include of boost/K.hpp is a dependency on K.
for files boost/R.hpp where no subdirectory R exists, the dependency
is either determined via an incomplete hand-constructed list of mappings
from file to project, or the dependency is on special project
UNCATEGORIZED. If a file is found that includes a file that does not
exist, the dependency is on project MISSING.
Script is here:
output in tabular form:
and in pdf form: