On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 12:18 PM, Rene Rivera <grafikrobot@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 12:04 PM, Stefan Seefeld <stefan@seefeld.name> wrote:
On 08/05/15 12:27 PM, Rene Rivera wrote:Why
doesn't it boil down to simply two:

* integrated: having the full boost source tree (no matter how you got it !)
* stand-alone: having only the library's source tree you are actually
interested in

In other words, why does it even matter how we get hold of a source tree
? Why is the layout of a source tree different depending on whether I
checkout via git, download a source tarball, etc.) ? Wouldn't it make
sense to first try to consolidate on a single layout, before adding
complicated build logic to deal with all those differences ?

That would be wonderful :-) But I guess the question is.. How can we reduce the number of cases? Do we make the release tar balls mirror "exactly" the git checkout?

Actually I also just realized that there's no way to reduce to two options. As there's also the "installed" tree. It only has built libraries and the headers, without sources or build files.

-- Rene Rivera
-- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything
-- Robot Dreams - http://robot-dreams.net
-- rrivera/acm.org (msn) - grafikrobot/aim,yahoo,skype,efnet,gmail