Re: [boost] Recent changes in Boost policies

Subject: Re: [boost] Recent changes in Boost policies
From: Niall Douglas (s_sourceforge_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-05-30 14:49:41

On 30 May 2015 at 21:32, Andrey Semashev wrote:

> Trying to emulate Boost.Test is not the solution (and we already have 
> lightweight_test.hpp for that). I think, bpm has to distinguish between the 
> three sets of dependencies and let the user decide what he wants to install.

Sorry, I wasn't being clear.

I was coming from the perspective of what is needed to persuade the 
steering committee and the release managers that a bpm based Boost is 
close enough to invest pushing it over the finish line.

I wasn't suggesting replacing Boost.Test. I was suggesting standing 
in an emulation good enough to allow the unit tests to compile and 
link (not necessarily run), and therefore gain a method of formally 
proving that the other two sets of dependencies (use and build) are 
working as intended.

I would imagine an automated script which bpm checked out every 
combination possible of Boost library (132 x 131?) and successfully 
compiled and linked all the libraries and unit tests would be a 
pretty good proof that a bpm based fully modular Boost distro is 
close.

Niall

-- 
ned Productions Limited Consulting
http://www.nedproductions.biz/ 
http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/