Re: [boost] Some statistics about the C++ 11/14 mandatory Boost libraries

Subject: Re: [boost] Some statistics about the C++ 11/14 mandatory Boost libraries
From: Stefan Seefeld (stefan_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-05-13 14:06:16

On 13/05/15 01:55 PM, Niall Douglas wrote:
> On 13 May 2015 at 12:37, Stefan Seefeld wrote:
>
>> On 13/05/15 12:19 PM, Niall Douglas wrote:
>>> Personally speaking, I think the new library authors are 
>>> overwhelmingly voting for a complete break with Boost 1.x. It makes 
>>> no sense to bundle these new libraries into a 1.x monolithic distro 
>>> when they have no dependencies on Boost.
>>>
>>> I believe now is the time we start establishing the infrastructure to 
>>> shape the new Boost 2.0 distro instead of wasting resources on trying 
>>> to refactor the 1.x distro. APIBind is there for maintainers wanting 
>>> to be part of both distros. Let's make a clean break.
>> Allow me to bring up a point I have been trying to make for quite a
>> while: Why does Boost need a single "distro" ?
> Under my scheme, a Boost 2.0 distro is merely when one presses 
> "Download All" and it downloads each of the individual standalone 
> distros for each Boost 2.0 library.

Sounds great.

>> Assuming a full breakup of boost libraries with well documented (and
>> encoded) dependencies among them, I think a much more viable solution
>> for everyone would be to let each boost library become its own project
>> with its own release schedule etc.
> Already there. APIBind makes it easier to iterate versions of a 
> library without breaking dependent libraries who can remain bound to 
> earlier versions. All in the same translation unit.

Sounds useful. But "Already there" surely is somewhat of an
overstatement. :-)
For once, each of those stand-alone library projects needs a way to be
built stand-alone, against already installed prerequisite libraries.
(I'm right now experimenting with getting boost.python to that point,
and I have asked for some help on boost.build. I'm not sure how long it
will take, and how much work will be involved, to get us there...

>> So Boost would be merely an umbrella organization, and what you call a
>> distro may be the repository of Boost libraries.
>>
>> Wouldn't that be something worthwhile to think about and discuss ?
> Already there. The web service dashboard I mentioned would let users 
> select what ordering criteria to rank the dashboard. You then press 
> download to download whichever libraries you want.

That sounds all good. But again, here we are only talking about
technical solutions, while the real questions are non-technical
(organizational, administrative, cultural, ...)

        Stefan

-- 
      ...ich hab' noch einen Koffer in Berlin...