From: Michael Marcin (mike_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-03-03 15:46:11
Jeff Garland wrote:
>> 1) enhance boost.build itself and
>> 2) provide more convenient (e.g. modular) binary boost packages.
> I mostly agree with this in that a) most boost libs still require no building,
> b) there's a windows installer now available from boost consulting, c) various
> *nix systems have binaries available (I can do apt-get on my Linux system one
> lib at a time for the 'built libs' -- others can use RPMs).
> So given all that is it really worth pursuing this stuff at all?
Yes! The windows installer and prebuilt binaries are only available on
some platforms. My company in particular works on many closed platforms
that probably cannot be openly supported and tested by Boost.
Even if they were available we wouldn't use them because a prebuilt
binary removes one the biggest reasons we feel comfortable using Boost.
If we find a problem we have the entire source available to us and
can fix the problem locally without having to depend on arbitrary 3rd
party. If we don't build that binaries from source we can't be sure
we'll be able to later if a problem arises.
P.S. IMO Boost is already reasonably modular, portions of MPL,
Preprocessor, and Type Traits are used by almost every library I've
needed so far but not much more
- Michael Marcin
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk