Subject: Re: [boost] Some statistics about the C++ 11/14 mandatory Boost libraries
From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-05-13 17:24:43
On Wednesday 13 May 2015 14:42:43 Stefan Seefeld wrote:
> On 13/05/15 02:23 PM, Edward Diener wrote:
> > On 5/13/2015 1:52 PM, Stefan Seefeld wrote:
> >> That's for each library maintainer to determine and to encode. Of
> >> course, I would assume boost to provide shareable tools to make it
> >> easier to do this, but boost is hardly the only project facing such
> >> tasks. In fact, the entire Free Software world had to solve this for
> >> many years.
> > Sorry but that is just skipping over a real problem. If there are
> > solutions that solve the problem then Boost needs to adopt one of
> > those solutions.
> I strongly disagree. "Boost needs to adopt" already sounds very wrong to
> me, in the context of my proposal where Boost is little more than an
> umbrella org.
I think you will have to make a choice ultimately. You can't realistically
have a zoo of tools used by different libraries and expect them all work
together nicely. If library A uses a dependency tracking tool X and depends on
library B then X should be able to handle dependencies of B as well and so on
to the leaf dependencies. I'm pretty sure the same would be desired for other
tools, like build systems. If it doesn't work that way then you can pretty
much drop the whole idea of modularity and follow the path of copy/pasting the
code, something Google likes to do.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk