> Either that, or we unite the different projects in a single source
> repo with a single build system, and just have separate --enable-foo
> options to turn each individual library on and off. In Visual Studio
> land, that would be done as a single solution file with a project file
> per lib. A single "make" invocation would produce
> libbitcoin.{so,a,pc}, libbitcoin-wallet.{so,a,pc},
> libbitcoin-server.{so,a,pc}, and so forth.
>
> Actually, this would be kinda nice. It's already hard enough to keep
> the various repos in sync, and we haven't even divided them down the
> granularity we are hoping for.
>
> -William

William does have a point.

* Simpler setup for users.
* (for now) a single package to distribute in Linux repos.
* Easier to track updates.
* Share same define and compile symbols easily.
* Ability to provide a single unified <bitcoin.hpp>

It could be possible with proper organisation to use a single repo and
keep everything properly split and modularised.

We also reduce the overhead for developers and users alike.

Eric what do you reckon if we merge libwallet back into libbitcoin?

We can also use conditional compilation (through macros like NO_WALLET or
NO_BLOCKCHAIN) to prevent including certain headers, which could be
enabled by certain ./configure switches (--no-wallet or --no-blockchain).