On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 12:07 PM, Paul A. Bristow <pbristow@hetp.u-net.com> wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Beman Dawes Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 4:50 PM To: boost@lists.boost.org Subject: Re: [boost] [Git] Documentation for Git and Modular Boost conversion
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 9:29 AM, Paul A. Bristow <pbristow@hetp.u-net.com> wrote:
* Layout of directory structure seems a significantly different structure to most Boost libraries, with boost_1-0-99/boost and boost_1-0-99/libs (as referenced http://www.boost.org/development/requirements.html#Directory_structure. Is this intended?
You haven't confirmed that the directory structure has changed significantly.
I've added some additional works to hopefully make it clearer that the location of header directories and headers has indeed moved.
Was boost-root/boost/simple/ simple.hpp ... /detail/stuff.hpp
boost-root/libs/simple/ test boost-root/libs/simple/example boost-root/libs/simple/doc
now is boost-root/libs/simple/include/simple.hpp ...
Actually, now is boost-root/libs/simple/include/boost/simple/simple.hpp Note that the install procedure will install a logical link from boost-root/boost/simple to boost-root/libs/simple/include/boost/simple so that user includes like #include <boost/simple/simple.hpp> still work. (Whether "logical link" is one link for the directory or one per header, and whether symlinks, hard links, or file copies are used is an implementation detail.)
and
boost-root/libs/simple/test, boost-root/libs/simple/example boost-root/libs/simple/doc ...
There was a logic (about whose details I am having a senior moment) for the previous structure.
A user wants to be able to tell a compiler "-Iboost-root" once, rather than have to supply a path for each library. At the time, we didn't want to bother with logical links.
I just want to be sure that the change is intended (and perhaps even understand why ;-)
(1) A unified directory structure for each library makes sense when libraries live in their own public repos. (2) We want to preserve existing user code, (3) we want to limit changes to directory structure as much as possible.
Would it be useful if I actually created a simple example - trying to follow your docs?
Yes! --Beman