Subject: Re: [boost] Recent changes in Boost policies
From: Peter Dimov (lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-05-30 11:45:50
Niall Douglas wrote:
> Hang on, are you saying here that bpm is fully functional for all Boost
> libraries right now?
You can follow the instructions in
and try it out. See also
I haven't tested the libraries one by one. It's possible that some don't
work; but if so, to address the problem, I'll first need to know which
libraries don't work.
> If so, why aren't we shipping bpm based fully modular Boost right now?
- bpm likes to place the headers in $BOOST_ROOT/include/boost, instead of
- We need to modularize the documentation so that installing a library via
bpm also installs its documentation
- And we need to decide what to do with parts of the release that aren't
currently part of a submodule, such as for example the more/ subdirectory.
Apart from that, I see no major roadblocks for doing a bpm release right now
on the basis of 1.58.0, but as I'm not very familiar with the release
procedure, which is more involved than I thought, there may be something
that I've missed.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk