Subject: Re: [boost] Link dependencies
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-12-06 09:07:15
On 12/6/2014 8:46 AM, Stephen Kelly wrote:
> Edward Diener wrote:
>> I believe that Boost should pursue the goal of allowing individual
>> libraries to be downloaded and used without having to download the
>> complete Boost structure.
> That would be nice :).
>> If enough people agree on a particular
>> solution it can be done by those people.
> That's not how Boost works. Boost libraries and decisions related to them
> are owned by the maintainer of the library. There is no 'enough people' who
> could decide to split the parts of Boost.Serialization which depend on
> Boost.Spirit away from the rest of the library, for example. Robert doesn't
> want that, so it won't happen. Decisions are not made as a community. That's
> how Boost works. 'Enough people' is not a factor. Am I wrong?
You are right that you can't force a particular library's maintenance
team to do something. That does not necessarily mean that people would
not come together to make changes benefitting Boost in general.
>> 2) Allowing individual libraries to be used, rather than current
>> monolithic Boost, is being done for the end-user community. We need to
>> make the goal that the way of doing this is as simple for the end-user
>> as possible
> That would be nice :).
> I don't see how it is possible without changing the Boost model of 'each
> individual maintainer decides, always'.
> If such rules were adopted you'd have to make it clear what the implications
> of having such a goal are.
>> They are
>> simply programmers wanting to use individual Boost libraries for their
>> programming efforts.
> Are you sure users want to use individual libraries? Do you see calls for
> that from users?
I have seen the calls for that from users. The general objection is that
downloading/installing monolithic Boost when only a few libraries are
needed "seems" wrong.
>> After which people who are interested can discuss the proposals and try
>> to see if there is one that meets a fairly large consensus. If that is
>> the case, then those who are part of that consensus can work together to
>> make it happen.
> Are you suggesting the result of such consensus would be forced on Boost
> maintainers independent of what they may want? That would seem to be a break
> from the current model of how Boost works.
No. I still believe that things can be done by consensus. Recently a
'meta' directory with some information was added to all Boost libraries.
I did not see any uprising against this. So clearly it is possible.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk