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
>   dependencies.

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 ;)

	Cheers,

	-- Johnny Lam <jlam@NetBSD.org>