On Jun 9, 2016, at 3:21 PM, rosscann...@fastmail.com wrote: > > - it's massive;
It’s also open source under one of the most liberal licenses available. Fossil could just swipe the one header file it needs. It hasn’t changed since 2005, so one may presume that it is stable. > - it has dependencies between its modules, so even if you just want a > tiny part of it, you might need other parts; That header does include others, so yes, someone would have to work out whether you run into an untenable dependency chain. I haven’t looked deeply into it, but I suspect it could be boiled down to a single reasonably-small header file. > - it has a bewildering array of compiler options. Much of Boost is preprocessor- or template-only code, not requiring that you build the Boost libraries at all. I have personally never used any of the Boost compiled libraries, not wanting to distribute them as dependencies on systems that don’t include Boost in the OS’s package repo, some of which we still need to support. > One of the things I like about fossil is how quickly and easily it > builds! It would be a shame to change that. Agreed. But I think we’re only talking about adding one smallish header file here, not making all of Boost a prerequisite. > I like the idea of bit-manipulation macros, but they would be quite easy > to craft ad hoc. Patches thoughtfully considered. :) _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
