Subject: Re: [boost] [modularization] proposal and poll
From: Nat Goodspeed (nat_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-05-29 18:35:25
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 4:22 PM, Julian Gonggrijp <j.gonggrijp_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> I think there could be a less ambitious but faster way to provide
> automated dependency handling. It would take no more than some static
> configuration, to list for each library what other Boost libraries it
> depends on, combined with a simple script that automatically traverses
> the dependency graph and clones just the necessary submodules. This
> script may then be hooked into the bootstrap script.
I love this idea.
> The following (evolutionary) global changes to Boost should be planned
> and given priority over any other proposals [e.g. 5], in the following
> 1. Reduction of dependencies between Boost libraries.
> 2. Simple but effective automation of dependency handling.
I'd like to suggest reversing this order: describing even the existing
dependencies would be valuable. It would also give us a way to
quantify incremental reductions in dependencies. "Look, this pull
request removes two dependencies from this library and seven of its
> I invite every opinionated
> person reading this to reply with a vote, either in favour of the
> proposal or against it.
I am thrilled that you are championing this idea. Please proceed!
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk