Subject: Re: [boost] [BPM] Supporting an alternative to meta/libraries.json
From: Glen Fernandes (glen.fernandes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-01-05 16:17:58
> Having other dirs other than the required ones would not be common.
> And not something I would recommend.
Boost libraries already have directories (and files) other than the required
ones. I don't think it is a good idea to restrict this in any way.
> No. The point of having that dir in each library is to decentralize the
> information so that it can be easily managed by the individual authors
> instead of needing continual release manager intervention.
Agreed; it makes sense to have this information in each library. Louis'
suggestion just affects the format of that information in each library. A
'dot' file in root directory feels like an already established convention.
> It would as it's more maintenance and confusion as to where to have
> that data. And as was pointed out that's not the only consumer of that
Yes. More desirable than having to support both formats would be en masse
modification of all libraries to change meta/libraries.json to .boost.
The matter effort that you raise: If Louis was willing to do the above work,
would you still object? I can't imagine library authors objecting. (It's not
like anyone objected to: A Wild meta/libraries.json Appears.)
-- View this message in context: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/BPM-Supporting-an-alternative-to-meta-libraries-json-tp4682457p4682489.html Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk