Boost logo

Boost Interest :

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-07-13 15:29:27

on Sun Jul 13 2008, "Doug Gregor" <> wrote:

> I went ahead and hacked this up; it's in the tree now. Looks like we
> have a bit of work to do to get all of the dependencies right. When I
> saw some failures due to the inability to find boost/config.hpp, I
> started wondering... should we define in advance what the "core" Boost
> libraries are, and leave them non-modularized? Boost.Config seems like
> the most core library of them all :)
> Or, maybe it's just better to get *all* of the dependencies in there
> now, and it'll be easier to maintain them afterward. Thoughts on these
> two approaches?

I vote for the latter. What's the advantage in doing the former?

Dave Abrahams
BoostPro Computing

Boost-cmake list run by bdawes at, david.abrahams at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at