Boost logo

Boost Interest :

From: Doug Gregor (doug.gregor_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-07-13 23:22:20

On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 3:29 PM, David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> 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?

Perhaps I was feeling lazy. It means a lot of dependencies for the
core things---every library tends to use type_traits, config,
mpl---but that's fine. I've patched up the dependencies for a whole
lot of libraries, but it'll take me a bit longer before I have all of
Boost building from modular libraries.

Once I get it all working, I'll send a graph of the actual
inter-library dependencies in Boost. It might be interesting!

  - Doug

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