Andrey Melnikov <melnikov@simplexsoft.com> writes:
David Abrahams wrote:
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.
I think that splitting Boost in boost-hdronly and boost-libs will help a lot.
Help with what?
There are a lot of thread or filesystem abstraction layers. But such unique libs like boost.lambda and MPL are header only, and can be used very easily without building bjam etc.
Almost nobody needs to build bjam, since we provide prebuilt executables. Also, you can use those libraries very easily from a full package without building bjam.
It would be nice to have a separate package.
Undoubtedly it would be nice. Are you volunteering to prepare and maintain it? Would you include or exclude documentation? What about tests? What about examples? -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com