Re: [boost] Sandbox cleanup

Subject: Re: [boost] Sandbox cleanup
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-11-29 15:10:57

On 11/29/2010 12:44 PM, Paul A. Bristow wrote:
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]]
>> On Behalf Of Edward Diener
>> Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 3:14 PM
>> To: boost_at_[hidden]
>> Subject: Re: [boost] Sandbox cleanup
>>
>> On 11/29/2010 3:27 AM, Vladimir Prus wrote:
>>>
>>> Folks,
>>>
>>> it appears that at present, our SVN sandbox is in fairly confused
>>> state. A fresh checkout contains objects of very different kinds, in
> particular:
>>> Comments?
>>
>> Only that developers should use the correct structure, where the /boost
> and
>> /libs subdirectories exist under each individual library, and that their
> appears to
>> be many libraries in the sandbox that are obsolete in the sense that the
> library is
>> already in Boost but files are still lying around in the sandbox.
>>
>> How and if the latter can be cleaned up I have no idea. As for the former,
> maybe
>> Boost should enforce the fact that individual libraries must use their own
> /boost
>> and /libs subdirectory since the general /boost and /libs directories will
> be
>> removed at some future date and all the libraries within these directories
> will be
>> moved to their own individual library.
>>
>> I too find the sandbox to be pretty messy, but I find it even more
> annoying when
>> proprosers of possible libraries to Boost put their code in some other
> arcane
>> place on the Internet rather than in the sandbox.
>> So it would be nice if the sandbox could be regularized and cleaned up.
>
> It would be *very* nice if every library followed the correct structure so
> it can be moved
> easily to trunk or a release download.
>
> I believe the current hassle involved in this is a real impediment to
> getting reviewers.
>
> So I think we should begin to make 'tough' noises ;-)
>
> Perhaps one the Boost.Guild people could take it on themselves to start by
> contacting offending authors?
>
> And a full description for would-be/existing author of *exactly* what the
> structure must be (with examples) would be good too.
>
> Being able to provide a link to a 'how-to' documentation might resolve the
> obvious confusion about this.
>
> (Aside: The structure seems quite dotty to me - perhaps someone can provide
> a rationale?
>
> But even if that rationale is lost in the mists of time, we have a standard,
> and a standard is what we must all follow, however peculiar.)

I do not have a rationale but the structure appears correct to me and 
not "quite dotty" <g>, but a valid attempt to emulate a Boost distribution.

In that rcommended structure under each library in the sandbox there is 
a 'boost' directory, equivalent to the 'boost' directory in a Boost 
distribution tree, and a 'libs' directory, equivalent to a 'libs' 
directory in a Boost distribution tree. All the end-user has to do, for 
a given sandbox library, is copy ( or move ) everything below a given 
library's top directory to the root of a Boost distribution tree if 
he/she wants to integrate it in with a particular Boost distribution ( 
most usually the latest Boost distribution in the SVN trunk ), and 
everything for that sandbox library should work as is. Actually since 
the sandbox is distributed under SVN, the proper thing to do if moving 
it below an SVN Boost trunk distribution, as I have since learned, is an 
SVN export, rather than a physical copy or move, for each of the 'boost' 
and 'libs' subdirectories so as not to replace the .svn files in a Boost 
trunk distribution.

At the same time, with the proper jam files for a sandbox library, as 
shown by Daniel James; 'example' sandbox library, one should also be 
able to use the library as is wherever one originally puts it, by 
specifying a Boost distribution using the 'bjam' option of 
'--boost=path/to/boost/distribution' when executing a sandbox jam file 
for building, testing, or docs.