Subject: Re: [boost] RFC: Separating Boost.Python from Boost
From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-05-29 18:32:30
On Friday 29 May 2015 18:08:26 Stefan Seefeld wrote:
> On 29/05/15 06:03 PM, Rob Stewart wrote:
> > If your changes have the effect of removing Boost.Python from Boost
> > releases, then they have broader implications than the convenience or
> > wishes of the maintainers.
> Sure, I didn't say they don't have implications for anyone. (I wouldn't
> have started the discussion if they hadn't.)
> However, only the people doing the actual work can chose where they put
> their effort. So you shouldn't discount them when talking about
> decisions to be made (or not).
Although I agree with you that it is the library maintainers who choose where
to put their effort, I would still like to ask you to provide means of
distributing your library as part of monolithic Boost (as long as it is the
current distribution model). That includes supporting distributing and
building/testing your library as a part of the Boost tree, as well as probably
communicating with the release managers in case if their release/docs building
scripts need updating. You have to understand that not everyone is going to
switch to the modularized distribution model right away, especially since it
is only Boost.Python that gets modularized for now. Ideally, I would suggest
making the "standalone" build scripts more or less separate, without affecting
the current integration into Boost infrastructure.
If your plan is to remove support for building your library as a part of
monolithic Boost then, at this point, this would basically mean removing the
library from Boost distribution. I'm sure this would be a painful change for
users, so forking the library may be more preferable in this case.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk