on Sun Jul 13 2008, "Doug Gregor" <doug.gregor-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
> I went ahead and hacked this up; it's in the tree now. Looks like we > have a bit of work to do to get all of the dependencies right. When I > saw some failures due to the inability to find boost/config.hpp, I > started wondering... should we define in advance what the "core" Boost > libraries are, and leave them non-modularized? Boost.Config seems like > the most core library of them all :) > > Or, maybe it's just better to get *all* of the dependencies in there > now, and it'll be easier to maintain them afterward. Thoughts on these > two approaches? I vote for the latter. What's the advantage in doing the former? -- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com _______________________________________________ Boost-cmake mailing list Boost-cmake@lists.boost.org http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-cmake
