christopher diggins <cdiggins@videotron.ca> writes:
Unfortunately some libraries are not header only and there is easy way to tell which libraries require separate compilation / linking steps and which don't. I would very much like a separate release which only contained header only libraries.
Don't you think assembling a separate release of boost just so you can tell which libraries need to be compiled is a bit of a heavyweight approach? Seems to me a little documentation should be sufficient.
If there are a significant number of advanced users who, like myself, only use the header-only libraries, it would mean that there would be an overall saving of bandwidth.
Bandwidth is hardly as valuable as volunteer time, IMO.
This also would include people doing casual downloads, such as curious newbies. So in that case I would not consider it to be a heavyweight approach, unless creating such a release would be a substantial amount of work for the release manager.
It would, unless you can figure out how to script it so it isn't.
This release I am proposing could alos be promoted as a lightweight release without documentation or tests. Boost-lite?
A release without documentation? <shudder> How will you discover which (header-only) libraries you have? -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com