Re: [boost] Moving the includedirectoryto$BOOST_ROOT/include?(again)

Subject: Re: [boost] Moving the includedirectoryto$BOOST_ROOT/include?(again)
From: Paul A. Bristow (pbristow_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-06-04 05:30:56

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Boost [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Peter Dimov
> Sent: 04 June 2015 00:00
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Subject: Re: [boost] Moving the includedirectoryto$BOOST_ROOT/include?(again)
> 
> Tom Kent wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 4:43 AM, Peter Dimov <lists_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > > I say "symlink" for brevity but on Windows in the common case it
> > > will probably be a junction.
> >
> > I don't think either works reliably on Windows. They will only work if
> > group policy permits it (and symlinks will never work on win7 if you
> > are an admin, ironically) and lots of programs don't deal with
> > junctions correctly.
> 
> "b2 headers" currently creates junctions when symlinks aren't available (which is basically
always) and I
> haven't had problems with them so far.

I have, requiring deletion of the /boost folder and rebuilding.

Also running with admin privs, or not, is an unwelcome complication.

(I start my DOS box using a (not-entirely-obvious) shortcut that runs with admin privs, but I'm not
sure if that is the best idea).

Sadly, it is all more complicated than would be ideal.

However, if people want a $BOOST_INCLUDE environment variable, then that's fine with me.

Just please don't *make* people change the source or folders or build system they have now!

Paul

---
Paul A. Bristow
Prizet Farmhouse
Kendal UK LA8 8AB
[phone]