Subject: Re: [boost] Directory structure not quite right yet?
From: Paul A. Bristow (pbristow_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-01-06 12:59:14
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Boost [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Beman Dawes
> Sent: 06 January 2015 15:04
> To: Boost Developers List
> Subject: Re: [boost] Directory structure not quite right yet?
> On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 10:28 AM, Peter Dimov <lists_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > It makes sense, at least to me, to have the headers in $BOOST/include/boost,
> instead of just $BOOST/boost.
> > I'm not saying that we should switch right away or something like that, but
> the only one to whom such a switch (at some unspecified time in the future)
> good idea?
> Short response: I think bpm when it goes live should install the new directory
> structure, but we should continue for awhile to ship the monolithic .zip/etc
> the old structure.
> Long response: There are several different install directory structures to
> * The directory structure developers install via git commands. Let's hope that
> change greatly for the foreseeable future, although it may evolve slowly.
> *Change here is disruptive to library developers.*
We've just about scaled the learning curve modularization with GIT (though there
are things that don't always work quite right with b2 headers which worry me
quite a bit).
I'm still not convinced of the benefits but there certainly is a big increase in
complexity. GIT still doesn't solve all the cooperative working issues and has
some mind-blowing effects when working on several branches.
Please can we make sure that BPM (can it be called Boost.Packager or NOT
something acromynic) really does help before making any changes to the layout.
And that it really does work nicely on all the platforms too, not just Linux.
--- Paul A. Bristow Prizet Farmhouse Kendal UK LA8 8AB +44 (0) 1539 561830
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk