Subject: Re: [boost] Git hardlinks, and developing
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-12-04 17:13:38
On 12/4/2013 4:13 PM, Beman Dawes wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 3:12 PM, BjÃ¸rn Roald <bjorn_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Some thoughts:
>> Assuming we have changed b2 headers to prefer symlink for individual files:
> Before we change anything I'd prefer to see a set of requirements
> developed. What scenarios do we expect to work out-of-the-box on what
On Linux symbolic links work on all Linux distributions. This is clearly
the way to go on Linux for every link, whether directory or file,
created within the boost/ subpath. We have already discussed why
hardlinks are the poorer choice for files.
I know nothing about the Mac.
1) Symbolic links work for Windows Vista and higher if the user has
2) Junctions are a form of symbolic links for directories that cannot
span network paths, which will not be a problem for modular boost
organization. Junctions work on all versions of Windows from Windows
2000 on up and do not require any special priveleges.
On Windows Vista and higher we should prefer symbolic links for the
directories and files in the boost/ subpath if the user has
administrative priveleges. Without administrator priveleges on Windows
Vista and higher, or in Windows XP and lower, we should use junctions
for directory links and hardlinks for the file links.
Ideally in the modular boost future if we could limit all link in the
boost/ subpath to directory links, we would be better off on Windows
since hardlinks need never be used.
> I'd like to see highest priority given to recent versions of the most
> common platforms used by Boost developer. I.E. Linux, Mac OS X, Windows.
> And getting the scenarios to work on recent versions before worrying about
> versions already abandoned by their vendors. Just my opinion, of course.