Re: Removing dots from toolset names

From: Aleksey Gurtovoy (alexy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-10-08 15:51:43

Beman Dawes writes:
> 
> At 11:35 AM 10/6/2004, Aleksey Gurtovoy wrote:
> >The original rationale was "to ensure file and directory names are
> >relatively portable":
> >http://www.boost.org/more/lib_guide.htm#Directory_structure.
> >
> >Beman might be able to clarify whether ISO 9660/Level 2 requirements
> >in particular were one of the motivating factors back then or not,
> >but currently those are the primary driving force for getting
> >Boost codebase to conform to these rules: We want to be able
> >to put a Boost distribution on a CD in the unpacked form, and for
> >that CD to be readable on the maximum number of platforms.
> 
> In addition to ISO 9660, the classic MAC OS, VMS, and various IBM legacy 
> OS's were considerations.

Thanks for the clarification.

> 
> The classic MAC OS is less of a consideration today, and VMS also falls in 
> that category. The legacy IBM systems are still important in some quarters, 
> but we have never had any requests for Boost interoperability on those 
> systems that I'm aware of.
> 
> That pretty much leaves ISO 9660 as the main consideration. I'm under the 
> impression that Joliet extensions are now widely available, although I've 
> not done a systematic survey.

On major modern platforms, they are -- 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_9660#Operating_system_support.

--
Aleksey Gurtovoy
MetaCommunications Engineering