Subject: Re: [boost] The problems with Boost development
From: Rob Riggs (rob_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-03-26 19:24:04
On 03/19/2010 09:49 AM, Vladimir Prus wrote:
> Daniel James wrote:
>> I'll reply to this properly later, I just want to say that we should
>> also take into account the difficultly we cause distributions. I was
>> surprised to see us mentioned alongside much more high profile
>> projects here:
>> But I don't think it was a complement. We didn't pay much attention to
>> this post at the time, but probably should have:
> no doubt Debian folks or any other packagers will not be happy about 90 libraries
> on a separate release schedule.
They deal with many, many more libraries for Perl, Python, Ruby, Java
and others. The major Linux distributions would not bat an eye at 90
Here are the results from Fedora 12:
$ yum list "perl-*" | grep -E "noarch|x86_64" | wc -l
$ yum list "python-*" | grep -E "noarch|x86_64" | wc -l
Most of those Perl modules likely come from CPAN. Apache alone likely
provides 90+ libraries for the Java platform.
What the distributors (and users!) want from Boost is some indication of
what parts are stable, what parts are under active development, and what
are NSFW. My guess is that the distributors might package up 1/2 - 2/3
of Boost, depending on popularity, if they were available for individual
Speaking of Apache, the Apache incubator process would be a great
process to adopt for Boost. It gives projects exposure, a chance for
major follow-on work to occur, feedback from users, and for interfaces
to settle down before being blessed as full projects. A similar process
for Boost might address some of the developer issues and some of the
user issues at the same time.
There is no way *Boost* could currently deal with 90 libraries on
separate release schedules given the inter-dependencies that exist
between the libraries.