You could merge during great rewrite, and unmerge again after the various
components stabilize.
On May 24, 2014 6:18 PM, "Amir Taaki" <genjix@???> wrote:

> > 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).
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Libbitcoin mailing list
> Libbitcoin@???
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libbitcoin
>