On 06. jan. 2015 03:42, Peter Dimov wrote:
Bjørn Roald wrote:
Fair enough, but it sort of escape me why you are so determined to get the headers into a conventional "include" directory, on the grounds that that is what users expect, while you seem perfectly fine with keeping the libraries hidden inside a very unconventional "stage" directory. What other project or software distribution use a "stage" directory? I can not think of one.
There are two reasons; the first one is that lib and libs are too close and will create a lot of confusion;
Which would be solved if there where no libs directory and all its subdirectories was in the modules directory
the second one is that I'm not very proficient with Boost.Build, so I kept my changes to a minimum.
I am not a sharp Boost.Build knife myself, so I am not sure how much this involves. But I think it may be relatively trivial, I may spend some time this week end looking at it.
But as I said, I wanted bpm to work on the current structure.
Why? It is not like that structure exist before bpm download files. So there is no current structure to work on. Am I missing something?
bpm itself wouldn't care, but if I moved libs/ to modules/ or components/ and stage/lib/ to lib/, I would have needed to patch all references to libs in Boost.Build (and potentially anywhere else), and I haven't investigated whether this is feasible.
I would expect all those references are to into the bin.v2 file structure, not to stage.
Perhaps it is, I just didn't check. (I would have then needed to maintain these fixes, as well.)
I am not sure there is anything that need to be changed for this, I will test when I gent some spare time. -- Bjørn