Subject: Re: [boost] Some statistics about the C++ 11/14 mandatory Boost libraries
From: Niall Douglas (s_sourceforge_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-05-13 14:39:56
On 13 May 2015 at 14:19, Stefan Seefeld wrote:
> >> Likewise, documenting the prerequisites is easy, if you have to do it
> >> upfront. It's only hard if these dependencies are implied, and only
> >> after the fact you need to re-discover them.
> > git submodules.
> That's only useful if you still want to work with the whole boost source
> tree as a whole, so I see it as a transitional measure.
Eh? Each git submodule is a direct dependency. Any git submodules
inside those is their direct dependencies. git submodule update
--init --recursive checks out a full set of exact dependencies,
nothing extra. No whole boost distro, excepting Boost 1.x as it's
> As I said, I really would like to get to a point where I can only check
> out boost.python, then configure its build by pointing at prerequisite
> libraries that I have either previously built myself, or got from my
> Linux (or other OS) distro. So there still is a fair bit of work that
> needs to go into boost.build.
I'll grant you that Boost.Python fits poorly to my proposed model.
Mine only works well for a large subset of Boost libraries.
-- ned Productions Limited Consulting http://www.nedproductions.biz/ http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk