Subject: Re: [boost] [python] Making a Python tuple from a Fusion sequence
From: Bruno Lalande (bruno.lalande_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-02-27 17:07:01
> What is the advantage of splitting boost in tiny pieces? I don't see much
> benefit in it and have no idea why Debian does that.
> Also, even Debian isn't braindead enough to have separate package for
> Boost.Fusion. It's part of libboost-dev which boost_python depends on anyway.
I agree... I'm a Debian user and I'm happy in the way Boost is
packaged but really, I won't be much less happy with only 2 packages,
dev and runtime. Moreover Boost.Fusion is header-only so regarding the
packaging rules of Debian, there wouldn't be any other dependency at
But anyway Stefan... are you sure this is a dependency?
We know that generic programming and metaprogramming techniques allow
totally foreign modules to interoperate very intimately. Great: a
library author can design its stuff to be adaptable with other
libraries. Problem: the adaptation can be tricky and need too much
skill from the user. Solution: the library author provides the
adaptation glue for the most widely used libraries. Does that make his
library suddenly "depend" on them? No, it only makes it "ready for"
So even if a highly fine-grained packaging tree was to be made, it
would have to separate dependencies from adaptations, anyhow. And what
I propose clearly falls into the second category.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk