On Tue, 1 Feb 2011 10:02:03 -0000 "Paul A. Bristow" <pbristow@hetp.u-net.com> wrote:
[...] such libraries when they occur. I think that this should be a Boost mandate: "if you want to submit your library for a Boost review you need to get sandbox access and put your library into it using the recommended directory structure." I find that much easier than getting some library from some URL address on the Internet or from the Boost vault, as a monolithic zip file, and unzipping and hoping that the directory structure corresponds to something I can try without wasting a great deal of time figuring out how to use said library.
Your explanations are fine - and I strongly support enforcement of the 'Boost Standard File Layout.
But IMO this shows:
* Judging by a fair number of projects in sandbox, Boost has failed to get over to wannabe authors the requirement/desirability for this structure. [...]
There's also this: <http://www.boost.org/development/requirements.html#Directory_structure> When I was preparing XInt, that's what I saw, so that's how I laid out my directory structure: xint build doc example src test I didn't know that was wrong until you (Paul) told me.
* Eventually one might find http://www.boost.org/community/sandbox.html .
FWIW, I never thought to look at that one when setting up XInt for submission.
* This tells you *what* you need to know, but not *why* it is like that.
* Telling *why* often gives a big push to compliance.
The requirements.html that I linked to above includes a partial rationale. Perhaps there should be prominent links on both pages to one another, one on the requirements.html page in place of the Sub-directory table, and one on the sandbox.html page telling people to review the requirements page for more details? Those would have helped me a great deal. -- Chad Nelson Oak Circle Software, Inc. * * *