From: Andrey Melnikov (melnikov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-09-14 16:52:22
Reece Dunn wrote:
> In general, on Windows, an "SDK" has the
> following layout:
> include -- header files
> amd64 -- AMD64 headers
> src -- source code
> lib -- libraries
> i386 -- IA32 libraries
> amd64 -- AMD64 libraries
> bin -- binaries (executables and shared libraries)
> I am not sure how strictly this structure holds for other "SDK"s. I am
> thinking of things like python. Also, do "SDK"s follow a different
> convention on *nix?
The convention is weak. It's often ignored. There are a lot of
exceptions. Boost itself, for example.
> You could assume the above layout and have controls for locating the
> include, lib and bin directories for "SDK"'s that don't follow that
> pattern. So:
> using wtl : 7.0 : c:/sdks/wtl70 ;
> would add c:/sdks/wtl70/bin to the path (not a problem if the directory
> does not exist), c:/sdks/wtl70/include to the include path either via
> environment variables (for msvc) or <include>/<system-include> for other
> Hmm... are there <system-include> and <system-library> features?
Yes. There is at least <sysinclude>. But it isn't widely supported by
Also, should Boost support this version/path syntax to configure which
of the installed Boost versions is to be used?
> there were, we could then add them to the environment for msvc and do
> the right thing with other compilers (doesn't CodeWarrior have a system
> include option?)
MSVC itself doesn't have a separate system include option. Only VS IDE
has. I wonder if there are any compilers with such separate option.
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