Rene Rivera <grafik.list@redshift-software.com> writes:
Any comments on this from the Boost Sandbox admins, or anyone?
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: Boost Sandbox layout? Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 18:41:58 -0600
David Abrahams wrote:
Rene Rivera <grafik.list@redshift-software.com> writes:
Was there ever a discussion as to the layout? (A cursory search did not reveal anything) I like what I _think_ you're suggesting we actually should do, but would you mind spelling it out for everyone's benefit?
I was trying not to prejudice the conversation if there was already reasons for the current layout... But since you ask :-)
I think it would more beneficial to have each library in an individual sub directory of the boost-sandbox. Each library would still be required to follow the regular Boost layout within itself.
That's what I thought you'd say. I like that.
For example I'm putting together the warnings submission and it would be nice to set it up like this:
/boost-sandbox/warnings /boost/utility/warnings.hpp /libs/utility /docs/warnings.html /test /Jamfile /nowarn_unused_var_test.cpp
Having the isolated subdir would remove the 3 drawbacks I mentioned. But itself has some drawbacks:
1) Some of the setup files would be duplicated. Like the boost.png, Jamfile, Jamrules, and boost-build.jam at the "top" level. But at the same time it means that the library would be truly standalone.
Not a big deal, IMO. On the other hand, I think the top-level bjam files can be moved up one level to avoid duplication. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com