Boost logo

Boost :

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

Rene wrote:
> 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
> data.

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:
Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at