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
-- ned Productions Limited Consulting http://www.nedproductions.biz/ http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk