Re: [boost] experimental boost-1.34.0 rpms

From: Stefan Seefeld (seefeld_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-01-26 10:18:28

Jeff Garland wrote:
> Stefan Seefeld wrote:
>> Pedro Lamarão wrote:
>>> Stefan Seefeld escreveu:
>>>> Benjamin Kosnik wrote:
>>>>>> Has any thought been put into releasing multiple split boost packages
>>>>>> containing orthogonal functionality (boost.python, boost.wave, boost.serialization,
>>>>>> etc.) ?
>>>>> Some. There are some intra-dependencies, and the split would add more 
>>>>> complications to an already too-complicated build process IMHO.
>>>> Ah well. Unfortunately not everybody agrees that boost is not modular enough.
>>> I've seen this discussion before, and never saw any proof of concept for 
>>> this modular release approach.
>> I'm not sure what you mean by 'proof of concept'. Use cases I have in mind
>> include:
>>
>> * The ability to install individual components.
>> * The ability to build a dependent component such that prerequisite components
>>   may be preinstalled or part of the same tree (say, on my FC6 laptop, I have
>>   'boost.core' and 'boost.graph' rpms installed, and want to compile 'boost.python'
>>   from mainline).
>> * The ability to run test suites for components, with all prerequisite components
>>   already installed.
>>
>>
>> I believe that having support for the above would make life for (almost)
>> everyone much easier, since components could be developed, built, tested, and
>> released (oh, and used ! :-) ) more independently.
> 
> There's all sorts of things that have already, and can be done.  Everyone that 
> wants a smaller boost can use bcp: http://www.boost.org/tools/bcp/bcp.html.

The danger here is to let users (and individual packagers) decide where to draw
the line(s). As a result, package layout differs between platforms / distributions,
making life hard for users. I think there is great value in boost.org providing
guidlines about how to split, so users get the same, no matter whether they
install from source, binary packages, or whatever.

(Example: I'm developing an application using some boost components, and I want
it to be portable, using make / autotools if available. What should I check for ?
Even among GNU/Linux distributions this may vary wildly !)

> bjam can already run tests for individual libs as desired.

But can it run test on one component that is being built against preinstalled
prerequisite components ? I still need a full source tree, no ?
And, it's not as easy as it could, so users refrain from doing it, so boost.org
doesn't get as much help as it could.

> On other Linux systems boost is already 'split up'. On my ubuntu system Boost 
>   has components for each 'built library', tools, docs, etc.  Here's the 
> relevant output of 'apt-get search boost'

Right, but as this split isn't christened by boost.org, other distros will
most likely reinvent their own way. RH / FC packages right now aren't split,
which is the point of my original reply.

> I'd suggest that the RPM based distros might want to follow the lead of ubuntu 
> if that want smaller granularity boost packages.

Thanks,
                Stefan

-- 
      ...ich hab' noch einen Koffer in Berlin...