Subject: Re: [boost] Fwd: Installing CMake configuration files
From: Steven Watanabe (watanabesj_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-10-20 23:23:20
AMDG
On 10/20/2018 03:52 PM, Peter Dimov via Boost wrote:
> Steven Watanabe wrote:
>
>> That seems a bit worrisome to me, as I really don't like the idea of
>> having a mixed-state sytem in the long term. It'll be really easy to
>> end up with targets that use both the global /boost/headers and the
>> library specific include paths. I can live with that as a temporary
>> measure, but it's still ugly.
>
> This is unavoidable - in the interim or otherwise - unless we either
> somehow solve, or outright eliminate, cyclic dependencies. Until then,
> libraries that form a cycle have to remain /boost//headers.
>
It's not unsolvable and I think we definitely need
to have a game plan for solving it before beginning
this particular project.
In Boost.Build, it may be as simple as saying: alias
targets may be cyclic provided that the build-requests
are consistent for each alias-target in the cycle.
i.e. you can't have a/release -> b/release -> a/debug.
This is a pain to implement, but it's definitely
possible, and I'm reasonably confident that it won't
result in any weird paradoxes.
In Christ,
Steven Watanabe