From: braden_mcdaniel (braden_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-02-25 17:19:29
--- In boost_at_y..., "David Abrahams" <david.abrahams_at_r...> wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Braden McDaniel" <braden_at_e...>
> > So you're suggesting it's reasonable for me to include a copy of Boost
> > in my project's distribution? Try again. It bloats my project's
> > distribution and, more importantly, it's a maintenance nightmare. As
> > I've said, this creates a lot of work downstream when the problem
> > be fixed once at the source.
> Are you planning to ask users to CVS a particular version of boost onto
> their system? That's what would be required currently. We try to
> this of course, but binary and source compatibility break on a regular
No... There is absolutely no way I'd impose that on my users. Once
possible approach now is to:
* import a Boost release into my CVS tree as a 3rd-party source.
* incorporate it into my build system.
* include Boost with my distribution.
3rd-party sources are really annoying to deal with. Even more annoying
is the bloat my distribution would take on as it incorporated boost.
There is also the approach Spirit has taken. Rather than include all
of Boost, they've picked out the parts they depend on. This saves
their distribution from being bloated, but updating to new versions of
the Boost sources becomes more complicated (especially if the
dependency graphs within Boost ever change).
Both of these approaches impose more work than using Boost should
impose. That's subjective, of course. But as far as I'm concerned, it
means that the amount of work involved is sufficient that it would
probably keep me from using Boost. Hence my involvement in this
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk