Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] boost modularisation status?
From: Dave Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-01-01 19:44:42

on Sun Jan 01 2012, "Vicente J. Botet Escriba" <> wrote:

> Le 01/01/12 20:51, Eric Niebler a écrit :
>> On 12/31/2011 5:37 PM, Dave Abrahams wrote:
>>> on Sat Dec 31 2011, Dave Abrahams<> wrote:
>>>> on Sat Dec 31 2011, "Robert Ramey"<> wrote:
>>>>> hasn't been modified in 3 years.
>>>>> Also, when I peruse my local copy of the release tree, I don't see what I
>>>>> expect to see according to
>> This page also needs to be updated or deleted.
>>>>> That is, I expect to seem include inside of the libraries at
>>>>> boost/libs/tr1/include - I don't see this.
>>>>> What is the current status of this?
>>>> Glad you asked!
>>>> That wiki page is (fortunately) out of date.
>>> I've updated the Wiki page now. Please let me know what you think.
>> I for one am glad to see this effort is ongoing. I'd like to see this
>> project get more visibility as I see it as important for the long-term
>> health of Boost. Can we put something on encouraging people to
>> try out the (pre-alpha) modularlized boost distro, where to file bugs
>> and how to get involved, etc?
> Hi,
> this should be considered as a new tool (and in addition it needs
> CMAKE build). While I consider the modularization useful, I find that
> adding a new build system to Boost will need some official maintainers
> of the CMake files for each one of the Boost libraries until the
> library authors have taken the time to be familiar with the new build
> system. Of course, this will imply that we need regular testers for
> both build systems which will be time consuming

I understand, but I disagree. There's no reason to make the (already
high) hurdles to such a transition stratospherically high. If the Boost
community decides to use any given new piece of infrastructure, there's
no reason it has to be a protracted process; it can just happen.

> Resuming, I think that we need a formal review for CMake build once it
> is able to build the whole Boost libraries.

Again I disagree. The review process is for libraries, and Boost has
never formally reviewed tools like this. I am more than happy to have a
discussion about it, and I believe that discussion should inform our
decision, but I believe it is possible for the steering committee to
make a decision as a matter of policy.

> Is CMake build ready for review? If no, what is missing, not working
> yet, ...?

I think the Wiki page makes it pretty darned clear what the status is.
Did you read the whole thing (particularly

Dave Abrahams
BoostPro Computing

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at