Subject: Re: [boost] Directory structure not quite right yet?
From: Vladimir Prus (vladimir_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-01-03 03:52:36
On 01/02/2015 08:16 AM, Peter Dimov wrote:
> Bjørn Roald wrote:
>> However, "b2 stage" could by default have same effect as "b2 install --prefix=.", then you will get exactly what you want I think.
> No, this is not what I want. I don't want two copies of the headers, one in include/boost/, and one in boost/ (that would be pretty stupid).
> I don't want a symlink include/boost -> boost (somewhat less stupid).
> When I go somewhere inside the Boost source tree, and use b2 to build a target, and that target has #include <boost/shared_ptr.hpp>, I want
> b2 to create a link include/boost/shared_ptr.hpp -> libs/smart_ptr/include/boost/shared_ptr.hpp, and then to use <include>include, rather
> than creating a link boost/shared_ptr.hpp -> libs/smart_ptr/include/boost/shared_ptr.hpp and using <include>. .
> Note that this has nothing to do with staging or installing. The "headers" target is an implicit dependency. Even if I had a copy of the
> headers in include/boost/, b2 would still recreate them in boost/ each time I build something.
> I agree that this would not be an issue if b2 used separate include paths for each library.
This has nothing to do with b2, it's just truthfully implementing a particular modularization design, and the question of the right
design is fairly independent from implementaiton.
I think the original rationale was that if you put 100 -I paths, then all your command-line become absolutely unreadable, blow up all
log files, and possibly blow up command-line length limits, explicit or implicit, in OS and various tools.
-- Vladimir Prus CodeSourcery / Mentor Embedded http://vladimirprus.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk