Subject: Re: [boost] [chrono] Dependency on math?
From: alex (alexhighviz_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-01-09 17:43:07
Peter Dimov wrote
> Sent: 09 January 2015 16:42
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Subject: Re: [boost] [chrono] Dependency on math?
> alex wrote:
> > As I understand it, if library X depends on library Y and Y depends on
> > Z, then X is said to depend on Z. I can understand as packages are
> > created based on the library dependency graph:
> > [ To package X we must package all libraries on which X depends.]
> > However, the reality is that the file-dependencies of X do not
> > necessarily include Z. Why would you not package only the files upon
> > which the desired library depends?
> Because the package for X only contains X's files, not its dependencies.
> depends on a file from Y, then Y's package must be installed to get Y's
> And since Y is now installed, if it requires building, Z needs to be
> well; but even if it doesn't require building, having Y installed but
> is not good from usability point of view.
Thanks for clarifying. I must say I am not convinced by the usability
argument. Having just the files of Y and not the build makes library X
usable. And X is what the user asked for. So, from a usability point of view
it is perfect.
Y must not be build, but there are good arguments for Y to be build. However
there are also counter arguments as there clearly is an unhealthy incentive
now to fragment libraries, to duplicate code and to fix things that are not
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk