Subject: Re: [boost] Directory structure not quite right yet?
From: Bjørn Roald (bjorn_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-01-05 22:05:30
On 06. jan. 2015 03:42, Peter Dimov wrote:
> 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;
Which would be solved if there where no libs directory and all its
subdirectories was in the modules directory
> the second one is that I'm not very
> proficient with Boost.Build, so I kept my changes to a minimum.
I am not a sharp Boost.Build knife myself, so I am not sure how much
this involves. But I think it may be relatively trivial, I may spend
some time this week end looking at it.
>> > 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.
I would expect all those references are to into the bin.v2 file
structure, not to stage.
> Perhaps it is, I just
> didn't check. (I would have then needed to maintain these fixes, as well.)
I am not sure there is anything that need to be changed for this, I will
test when I gent some spare time.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk