Subject: Re: [boost] Fwd: Installing CMake configuration files
From: Steven Watanabe (watanabesj_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-10-20 23:23:20
On 10/20/2018 03:52 PM, Peter Dimov via Boost wrote:
> Steven Watanabe wrote:
>> That seems a bit worrisome to me, as I really don't like the idea of
>> having a mixed-state sytem in the long term.Â It'll be really easy to
>> end up with targets that use both the global /boost/headers and the
>> library specific include paths.Â I can live with that as a temporary
>> measure, but it's still ugly.
> This is unavoidable - in the interim or otherwise - unless we either
> somehow solve, or outright eliminate, cyclic dependencies. Until then,
> libraries that form a cycle have to remain /boost//headers.
It's not unsolvable and I think we definitely need
to have a game plan for solving it before beginning
this particular project.
In Boost.Build, it may be as simple as saying: alias
targets may be cyclic provided that the build-requests
are consistent for each alias-target in the cycle.
i.e. you can't have a/release -> b/release -> a/debug.
This is a pain to implement, but it's definitely
possible, and I'm reasonably confident that it won't
result in any weird paradoxes.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk