Re: [Dbus-cxx-devel] OS X support

[Rick L. V. Jr. <rvi...@cs...>]

Tyler Conant wrote:
> I haven't moved forward on this because I was looking for some opinions
> about adding a requirement for boost. I use boost heavily in most my
> projects so it was my first choice, however adding a requirement to a
> conveniently light package like dbus-cxx usually raises objections so I
> was waiting for some feedback.

You're right. I do want to keep dbus-cxx as light as possible for the
default builds. But, I have no objection to something that adds an
autoconf option such as --with-boost that would then pull in the boost
library along with a define that would be in the code.

> I believe dbus-cxx uses boost when
> available for smart pointers and falls back to an internal implementation
> when not available, but I could be wrong.

Mostly correct. It looks for a c++0x implementation first, then a tr1,
then boost.




-- 

Rick