-----Original Message----- From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Edward Diener Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 6:35 PM To: boost@lists.boost.org Subject: Re: [boost] Process discussions
(And - aside - why it is not
Trunk/ Jamfile mylib/ boost/ libs/
Why are there two 'extra' /mylib folders? Is this historical or is/was there some logic to it?)
It's need in the header directory so that the include paths for different libraries don't clash.
That seems lot of extra sub folders for something that a modest about of name control could avoid?
My understanding is that it replicates the Boost structure. So one can refer to one's header file paths as if one's top level directory is the main directory of a Boost distribution. Then there is no need to change header file includes when one's library is put inside a Boost distribution tree ( or some SVN branch like 'trunk' which duplicates a Boost tree ).
I think if you will look at the structure you will see this pretty easily.
(I note that there are some projects in sandbox that fail to follow this layout, so they are going to get into trouble :-( A template might help?)
I agree with you. I honestly don't see why all possible libraries for Boost to be reviewed are not in the sandbox using the recommended layout. It would certainly make it much easier for others to use, test, review, and get updates to 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. * Boost search and/indexing is ineffective. Using the Boost page clicking on "Search Boost" doesn't produce any helpful links. (nor does refining the search to only www.boost.org). FAQ doesn't help. The index is tiny for such a massive site, and is no help for this question. * Eventually one might find http://www.boost.org/community/sandbox.html . * This tells you *what* you need to know, but not *why* it is like that. * Telling *why* often gives a big push to compliance. Paul --- Paul A. Bristow, Prizet Farmhouse, Kendal LA8 8AB UK +44 1539 561830 07714330204 pbristow@hetp.u-net.com