Re: [boost] RFC: Separating Boost.Python from Boost

Subject: Re: [boost] RFC: Separating Boost.Python from Boost
From: Rene Rivera (grafikrobot_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-05-31 00:59:55

On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 11:48 PM, Edward Diener <eldiener_at_[hidden]>
wrote:

> On 5/31/2015 12:20 AM, Rene Rivera wrote:
>
>> On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 3:37 PM, Steven Watanabe <watanabesj_at_[hidden]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>  AMDG
>>>
>>> On 05/30/2015 01:24 PM, Robert Ramey wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> If boost build doesn't do it this way but rather depends upon some list,
>>>> well it would be easy for boost build to generate the list from the
>>>> directory structure - no other changes necessary.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Actually, this would be quite easy for me to implement as as shell
>>>> script. I realize that this would repeat some dependency checking but it
>>>> would still work.  In general, the building of all of boost should be
>>>> the union of building each library in the libs directory.  Similar for
>>>> test.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Building is currently done this way (with a few special
>>> cases).  The tests have a hard-coded list in status/.
>>>
>>>
>> I've wished for some time that was not the case. And that we could do a
>> simple glob and automate the set of tested libraries. But the non-flat
>> structure of the current arrangement makes that much harder than just
>> having a manual list. I've mentioned before that I would very much prefer
>> if we didn't have libraries within libraries in the libs structure. As a
>> flat structure would make it possible to automate. But library authors
>> have
>> ignored my view on this. Note this also make the root build files more
>> complicated than they need to be.
>>
>
> This is not a problem if there were an agreement as to the directory
> structure of a Boost library in the directory tree. But aside from the
> 'include' directory structure so that symlinks and 'b2 headers' can be set
> up to work correctly I don't believe there is such an agreement.
>

I'm not sure if I understand your assertion.. As we've had this <
http://www.boost.org/development/requirements.html#Directory_structure>
for, IIRC, at least a decade.

> I do not believe that a flat directory structure is optimal. There are
> libraries that should be nested within other libraries if conceptually this
> is the case.

Please explain in detail and with examples. I truly do want to know why you
think this.

-- 
-- Rene Rivera
-- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything
-- Robot Dreams - http://robot-dreams.net
-- rrivera/acm.org (msn) - grafikrobot/aim,yahoo,skype,efnet,gmail