Boost logo

Boost Interest :

From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-08-11 10:11:00

On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 10:40 PM, Doug Gregor <doug.gregor_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> * The resulting directory structure isn't quite right. IMO, the next level
> > under /Program Files/Boost should be "boost_1_36". The level under that
> > should be similar to the boost tree as distributed in the zip/bz2/etc
> files,
> > except that there won't be any entries in the boost or libs subtrees for
> > omitted libraries.
> I don't agree. The include directory within Program Files\Boost is
> versioned, as are the installed libraries. Documentation installation
> certainly needs to be added (and would also, presumably, be
> versioned), but why install the rest? This is a binary installer meant
> for users... I guess we could have "Source code" components for each
> of the components, perhaps.

I just realized that the directory structure issue is much more serious than
I had realized:

If the directory structure produced by the installers is different from the
directory structure created by unpacking the full distribution files or the
directory structure described in the "Getting Started" guide, it will be a
source of great confusion.

The installers, distribution files (.bz2, .zip, etc), and the Getting
Started guide all need to use the same directory structure, at least until
such time as there has been a wide discussion of any proposed change to
verify that it won't break things like the Getting Started guide.

Furthermore, if that directory structure changes, users may need migration
help. Remember that vast numbers of users have setups such as scripts or
Visual Studio solutions or property files that assume a certain Boost
directory structure.

Thus any change needs lots of discussion and "heads up" warnings, IMO. That
isn't to say we can't make such changes, but we need to be very careful
about possible fallout.



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