Re: [boost] [cmake] Minimum viable cmakeification for Boost

Subject: Re: [boost] [cmake] Minimum viable cmakeification for Boost
From: Vinnie Falco (vinnie.falco_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-06-21 18:13:05

On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 10:58 AM, Thomas Heller via Boost
<boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Absolutely not. I'd prefer to link against compiled libraries. If only to
> reduce compile times.

Nothing wrong with the OPTION to link against Boost.System, but
header-only should be the default. Its easier for users and gives a
better experience.

On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 11:01 AM, Peter Dimov via Boost
<boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> ...ASIO header only users almost certainly will also want
>> header only Boost.System.
>
>
> I don't think so (although now that it has been fixed to use Winapi instead
> of <windows.h>, maybe).
>
> But even if true, users of static library A that uses Asio will not
> necessarily want a header-only Boost.System, which means that static library
> A has to have a way to link to Asio "statically".

For reference, here is the ONE .cpp file which makes Boost.System not
header-only:
https://github.com/boostorg/system/blob/develop/src/error_code.cpp#L14

and here's that one header it includes
https://github.com/boostorg/system/blob/develop/include/boost/system/detail/error_code.ipp#L12

We make people link against Boost.System just for that? Especially
when std::error_code is a built in for C++11 and later? It seems
overkill.

Boost.System should be header-only by default. Then, Asio users will
never need a link dependency.