Subject: Re: [boost] [modularization] proposal and poll
From: Julian Gonggrijp (j.gonggrijp_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-05-29 20:04:14
Stefan Seefeld wrote:
> On 2014-05-29 16:22, Julian Gonggrijp wrote:
>> 1. Reduction of dependencies between Boost libraries.
>> 2. Simple but effective automation of dependency handling.
> I very much applaud all efforts on 1., but I'm slightly against 2.
> insofar as it reduces the motivation to work on 1.
> (Read: If by 2. you mean the tracking of dependencies, I think this is
> very useful in support of the overall goal. In contrast, if you mean
> tools to clone files automatically, that would provide incentives to
> continue carelessly adding unneeded dependencies, so I'd vote against it.)
By point 2. I meant a script that looks up what other submodules a
particular Boost submodule depends on, and checks out those submodules
in order to provide the user with a local copy (which can then be
installed). I believe this would be a disincentive for library
authors to add more dependencies, because library interdependencies
become more marked in this way (currently the dependencies are
invisible because users always download all of Boost). Nat Goodspeed
suggested a similar positive effect for point 2, where the existence
of a file that documents the dependencies of a library may motivate
people to reduce the number of dependencies.
Would you vote in favour of that? Either way, I'll count your vote in
favour of point 1.
> Good luck !
Thank you, and thanks to the others who voted so far.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk