Subject: Re: [boost] Directory structure not quite right yet?
From: Peter Dimov (lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-01-05 21:42:11
Bjørn Roald wrote:
> Fair enough, but it sort of escape me why you are so determined to get the
> headers into a conventional "include" directory, on the grounds that that
> is what users expect, while you seem perfectly fine with keeping the
> libraries hidden inside a very unconventional "stage" directory. What
> other project or software distribution use a "stage" directory? I can not
> think of one.
There are two reasons; the first one is that lib and libs are too close and
will create a lot of confusion; the second one is that I'm not very
proficient with Boost.Build, so I kept my changes to a minimum.
> > But as I said, I wanted bpm to work on the current structure.
> Why? It is not like that structure exist before bpm download files. So
> there is no current structure to work on. Am I missing something?
bpm itself wouldn't care, but if I moved libs/ to modules/ or components/
and stage/lib/ to lib/, I would have needed to patch all references to libs
in Boost.Build (and potentially anywhere else), and I haven't investigated
whether this is feasible. Perhaps it is, I just didn't check. (I would have
then needed to maintain these fixes, as well.)
The package script would also need to be fixed, since it currently takes its
input from the source tree, but that's easier.
In short, I could live with stage/lib, so I didn't feel that strongly about
fixing it. I did feel strongly about -I <root>, so I fixed _that_. :-)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk