Re: [boost] [modularization] Are modular releases a goal or a non-goal?

Subject: Re: [boost] [modularization] Are modular releases a goal or a non-goal?
From: Stephen Kelly (hello_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-09-22 04:53:26

Thijs (M.A.) van den Berg wrote:

> Now it has grows into a
> large set of libraries for specific niches with varying level quality
> (code, docs, maintenance support)

Really? Is that what it is? Are you sure? Or is that a goal you have in 
mind? Is that what boost was while it was in svn? Or did boost become that 
by migrating to 100 *interdependent* git repos? Did migrating to 100 
*interdependent* git repos help the above statement in any way?

> , and perhaps varying levels of language
> support (C++14 only libs?) and modularization makes sense.
> 
> Some examples of environment that have solved the issues of having large
> sets of libraries with dependencies and various levels of quality: Debian
> Linux, R project, python pip.

Are you saying you want similarity to those projects from boost?

Boost is released as one tarball, as I linked in the original post, and that 
is not going to change. Or it is not a goal to change that, apparently. 

In that monolithic light, please walk me through the analogy how current 
boost (or a boost you have as a goal) relates to Debian Linux, because I 
don't get it.

> Maybe we need an independent  "apt-get" like tool for C++ libraries? Not
> just for boost libraries, but various other C++ libraries as well?

Are you saying this should be a goal? Is a modular release of boost (a 
tarball per library) a prerequisite for that or not?

Tell me how things are now in your words and tell me what your goal is.

Thanks,

Steve.