Re: [boost] Boost is supposed to serve *the entire C++ community; it isn't Boost's goal to serve Boost's community*

Subject: Re: [boost] Boost is supposed to serve *the entire C++ community; it isn't Boost's goal to serve Boost's community*
From: Vladimir Prus (vladimir.prus_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-05-20 02:35:13

On 20/05/2016 01:35, Stefan Seefeld wrote:
> On 19.05.2016 18:13, Daniel James wrote:
>> On 19 May 2016 at 17:25, M.A. van den Berg <thijs_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>> I also like “sudo apt-get”, and I also like the it pulls in all the things you need and not having to worry about things, that’s exactly what I would love to see.
>>>
>>> The Debian package manager however does not download the whole repository of all debian packages, instead it models package dependencies and download the dependency tree.
>> Debian's great. As far as I know, it's the only modularization of
>> boost in use, and it's been working well for years, so I think it'd be
>> a good model for us to base our efforts on. I suspect having a smaller
>> number of modules helps usability as well.
>
> Fedora has been doing the same for many years. In fact, I'm not aware of
> any Linux distro that doesn't ship individual Boost libraries, which is
> why I have been promoting to do this modularization "inhouse", to avoid
> to put that burden on package maintainers, and different distros to vary
> slightly in their way to implement this, causing headaches for users on
> those platforms.

I think the reference to modularization in Debian is slightly misleading.
Each component with separately compiled libraries become a separate package.
The header-only libraries are all inside a single package, libboost-dev or
something like that. It's not like you can separately install boost.any

-- 
Vladimir Prus
http://vladimirprus.com