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.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk