On Saturday 30 May 2015 15:07:15 Vladimir Prus wrote:
On 5/30/2015 12:43 PM, Bjorn Reese wrote:
On 05/30/2015 05:11 AM, Robert Ramey wrote:
So you could build boost python with having the upper level bjam files.
[...]
Why would anyone want to use this? and for what?
I do not know why anyone want to do that for Boost.Python, but this problem is of a general nature.
Every author of a new Boost library has to go through the "birth-pain" of getting their library to build with Boost.Build while it is not part of monolithic Boost yet.
Currently, the easiest way is to checkout the Boost codebase and then copy your library in there. A more involved alternative is to cheat Boost.Build into believing that your library is part of the Boost code base by adding lots of symbolic links all around. Neither solution is feasible if you want other projects to use your library.
Being able to build such proposed libraries without upper level bjam files would help a lot. This could lower the pratical barriers of entry for new Boost libraries.
If that's perceived a significant problem, I can try to improve that - like, I could try making upcoming Boost.DLL testable without copy-into-boost?
When I was developing Boost.Log before it got accepted and merged into Boost, I was asked on multiple occasions about how one could build and use the library outside of a Boost distribution. Since I'm not very good at Boost.Build my recommendation had always been "copy into Boost". If there was a simple way to just build the library as a standalone project that would certainly help.