Subject: Re: Splitting boost
To: Julio M. Merino Vidal <email@example.com>
From: Johnny Lam <jlam@NetBSD.org>
Date: 02/19/2005 09:53:18
Julio M. Merino Vidal wrote:
> It looks like my initial proposal was not very accurate :-/ After
> inspecting the sources a bit more, I have found that what I said is not
> a very good idea ;) Maybe we could:
> - Keep the current boost package, but remove any shared libraries from
> it. This package should only install all the libraries that come in
> header file form only (most of them). It could become a build time
> dependency _only_.
> - Add some boost packages for the libraries that come in binary form.
> This'd mean: filesystem, datetime and test (AFAICS after looking at
> the libraries I've actually installed). These could be runtime
Yes, this proposal sounds very good. Boost is mostly a large collection
of template libraries with only a handful of shared libraries, and it
would make good sense to make the split along those lines. As you note,
most packages would only need a build dependency on the package
containing the template library headers.
BTW, the reason for the dynamic PLISTs is that I was lazy when I
originally created the boost packages ;)
-- Johnny Lam <jlam@NetBSD.org>