Re: [boost] Removing old config macro and increasing compiler requirements.

Subject: Re: [boost] Removing old config macro and increasing compiler requirements.
From: Daniel James (daniel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-08-04 06:45:12

On Sun, 4 Aug 2013, at 12:27 PM, Stephen Kelly wrote:
> On 08/04/2013 12:00 PM, Bo Persson wrote:
> > Daniel James skrev 2013-08-04 10:57:
> >> On Sun, 4 Aug 2013, at 10:22 AM, Stephen Kelly wrote:
> >>>
> >>> What do you think about increasing the compiler requirement much more,
> >>> as I wrote in another mail?
> >>
> >> I'd say no, unless you've got a very good reason. Compiler support
> >> should be an individual library maintainers decision.
> >>
> >
> > Should it? If one library can be dependent on 35 others (boost::any?)
> > it sure seems like an agreed upon base line could be useful.
> 
> Note that the libraries are all in an interdependent mesh. So attempting
> to use any one of them (not just the 'any' one of them :) ) results in
> requiring all of them.
> 
>  http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.programming.tools.ryppl.devel/9/focus=26

I tried deleting the unordered library from my repo and could still run
the any tests just fine. So unordered's compiler requirements don't
affect boost::any's at all, even though it's in your list. Module
dependencies are too coarse grained. They pull in a lot of transitive
dependencies that don't affect actual use. Which is what determines
compiler requirements.