Subject: Re: [boost] [svn/git/hg] Support for modularization of Boost?
From: Julian Gonggrijp (j.gonggrijp_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-04-04 05:05:43
Thomas Heller wrote:
> On 04/04/2012 09:15 AM, Thomas Heller wrote:
>> As far as I am aware there are two big Opensource Projects which are highly modularized and use git:
>> 1) Xorg (http://cgit.freedesktop.org/):
>> They provide one git repository per module, when building any module from source, one has to track the dependency manually, and point the build system to the other modules locations.
>> 2) KDE (https://projects.kde.org/ and http://quickgit.kde.org/):
>> Same setup as above.
>> I don't know if they were modularized before they switched to git.
>> IMHO, one of the downsides is the lack of build tool support. Meaning, that it is a little cumbersome to collect all necessary modules and setup the build process for the different modules. I don't think the DCVS approach has any significant advantage over SVN when merely looking at splitting up one big repository into smaller ones.
>> However, the advantages discussed in other threads will lead to better possibilities in integrating externally developed boost modules.
> I forgot one thing ... this whole build-tool support might not be a big problem for linux users, as they can easily get the boost modules with dependency tracking and such from their distribution. How will this look in windows? For boost contributors this might not be a big issue, cause it is a one-time setup. What about users who need the latest greatest version from version control?
> Please say that I rate this problem too high and that there is an easy solution.
> FWIW, I am all for a modularized boost!
Isn't this exactly the problem that the Ryppl folks hope to solve by
In fact, isn't this entire topic already covered by the people at
Ryppl, anyway? Perhaps we should ask them to explain the current
state of their ideas first.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk