On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 3:29 PM, David Abrahams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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?
Perhaps I was feeling lazy. It means a lot of dependencies for the core things---every library tends to use type_traits, config, mpl---but that's fine. I've patched up the dependencies for a whole lot of libraries, but it'll take me a bit longer before I have all of Boost building from modular libraries. Once I get it all working, I'll send a graph of the actual inter-library dependencies in Boost. It might be interesting! - Doug _______________________________________________ Boost-cmake mailing list Boost-cmake@lists.boost.org http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-cmake
