From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-01-09 12:15:57
"William E. Kempf" <wekempf_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> From: David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]>
>> There are two ways in which it might break things, though they're
>> not problems for all usage models. When Boost.Build v2 reaches
>> completion, it will become possible to set up cross-project build
>> dependencies, so that you can you can make a project which uses a
>> boost library and causes that library to be built automatically when
>> it is needed. It will be important to make sure that Boost's build
>> procedure is immune to having its headers moved. On a similar note,
>> users will want to be able to update their boost tree from CVS with
>> a single update, so separating the headers directory in this way
>> could cause problems.
> I wasn't thinking about the first problem for two reasons:
> * Most users currently use something other than Boost.Build for
> building their own applications which use Boost.
> * As you point out, v2 should help with this problem.
"should" as in "ought to" is different from "should" as in "is
expected to". If I pointed anything out, it was only the first
>> I think both of these issues can be addressed by using a symlink to
>> the $BOOST_ROOT/boost directory in your include/ directory, but of
>> course Windoze doesn't supply real symlinks :(
> Depends on what you mean by "real symlinks" and which Windows OS
> you're talking about. W2K and XP have "junction points" which are
> enough like POSIX symlinks to do what you want here.
Really? How do I set one up with the GUI?
-- David Abrahams dave_at_[hidden] * http://www.boost-consulting.com Boost support, enhancements, training, and commercial distribution
Boost-Build list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk