Subject: Re: [boost] Use of third-party libraries
From: Michael Shepanski (mps_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-07-23 22:35:25
On 24/07/2014 12:12 AM, Andrey Semashev wrote:
> Monolithic library is not a good solution for distributed binaries.
> Once compiled library will require all the DBMSes it was compiled
> against and not support any other. E.g. on Linux such library package
> will pull all DBMS packages, even though the user might need just one.
Good point. Okay, so I will avoid monolithic .lib output. And as you
say, that leaves other questions open:
> I think separate optionally compiled binaries (one backend per binary)
> is the preferred solution. That doesn't mean the library source code
> and docs must be split, though.
Reading this and other responses I realise how many separate questions
are on the table: "Single or multiple output libs?", "Single or multiple
subdirs of boost/libs?", "Single or multiple git repositories?" are all
different questions. But I think we have now answered the first one.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk