Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] RFC: Separating Boost.Python from Boost
From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-05-30 14:06:40

On Saturday 30 May 2015 15:07:15 Vladimir Prus wrote:
> On 5/30/2015 12:43 PM, Bjorn Reese wrote:
> > On 05/30/2015 05:11 AM, Robert Ramey wrote:
> >> So you could build boost python with having the upper level bjam files.
> >
> > [...]
> >
> >> Why would anyone want to use this? and for what?
> >
> > I do not know why anyone want to do that for Boost.Python, but this
> > problem is of a general nature.
> >
> > Every author of a new Boost library has to go through the "birth-pain"
> > of getting their library to build with Boost.Build while it is not part
> > of monolithic Boost yet.
> >
> > Currently, the easiest way is to checkout the Boost codebase and then
> > copy your library in there. A more involved alternative is to cheat
> > Boost.Build into believing that your library is part of the Boost code
> > base by adding lots of symbolic links all around. Neither solution is
> > feasible if you want other projects to use your library.
> >
> > Being able to build such proposed libraries without upper level bjam
> > files would help a lot. This could lower the pratical barriers of
> > entry for new Boost libraries.
> If that's perceived a significant problem, I can try to improve
> that - like, I could try making upcoming Boost.DLL testable without
> copy-into-boost?

When I was developing Boost.Log before it got accepted and merged into Boost,
I was asked on multiple occasions about how one could build and use the
library outside of a Boost distribution. Since I'm not very good at
Boost.Build my recommendation had always been "copy into Boost". If there was
a simple way to just build the library as a standalone project that would
certainly help.

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at