Re: [boost] A set of individual libraries vs. One big library

Subject: Re: [boost] A set of individual libraries vs. One big library
From: Stefan Seefeld (seefeld_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-01-19 14:13:40

Emil Dotchevski wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 8:03 AM, Anis Benyelloul
> <anis.benyelloul_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>   
>> Hello,
>>
>> I was wondering if there was any interest into making the boost libraries
>> more ``independent''?
>>     

There definitely is !

>> Boost contains many libraries with very different application domains. In
>> most cases you'll want to use only one/two libraries in your project
>>     
>
> Let's say that somehow you manage to separate Boost into a bunch of
> libraries. Consider a situation where Boost library A uses only a
> single header file from another (large) Boost library B. Doesn't your
> original reasoning apply? Shouldn't that single header file be a
> separate library (since -- obviously -- it makes sense on its own)?
>
> You could go for a system where a C++ cpp/header pair is the only
> logical unit. Such a unit would contain the minimum declarations and
> definitions that can possibly exist on their own.
>   

This seems to me a rather academic question, in contrast to the original 
request. Boost is still shipped as a single package on most (if not all) 
platforms, and providing some help to packagers to be able to split it 
up would be extremely useful.

Whether individual libraries are header-only or not isn't all that 
relevant in this context. If I'm building software that requires some 
parts of boost, yet I'm not packaging it myself but instead rely on 
external packages, I'm quite concerned about what other implied 
prerequisites this may drag in.

Any work in this direction would be very much appreciated.

Thanks,
       Stefan

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