Re: [boost] proposal - modularize Boost build system

Subject: Re: [boost] proposal - modularize Boost build system
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-06-18 22:05:12

On 6/18/17 2:15 PM, Ion Gaztañaga via Boost wrote:

> If you want to release your library individually, then it's no longer 
> Boost. 

Hmmm - now we're getting down to "what is boost" ....

> Boost is a coherent library collection.
some might differ on this point
  You are free to release
> your library individually, just like ASIO does. 

thank you

You'll need to somehow
> solve dependency and compatibility issues on other boost libraries 
> yourself.

Hmmm - honestly, boost doesn't do as much in this area as one would 
think.  Bjam does handle dependencies - true.  Compatibity is managed 
through test.  I don't think any one as suggested changing any of this. 
I think (though I'm not actually sure) that this discussion is to 
facilitate the usage of CMake by boost users to don't want to be boost 
developers but rather "just" boost users.

> If git clone is huge for Boost, then it's a git user problem, because 
> it's a decentralized VCS, just use a shallow clone.
> 
> If we further modularize Boost libraries, then someone will propose that 
> each library should choose its VCS, bug system and mailing list.

Actually, I already proposed this some time ago.  In fact we already 
have much of that. For example, for bugs some libraries use git issues 
while others use the traditional system. Each library chooses it's own 
documentation tools. The git submodule implementation could be seen as 
each library having it's own VCS just tied together at the top.

> I don't like each library to use a different build tool (CMake, SCons, 
> etc...) I like the fact that I can write my test jamfile triggers the 
> creation of any dependent library just because all of them use bjam and 

we're not talking about what you want to do as a boost developer.  You 
can do whatever you want.  The question is should you, boost or anyone 
else tell developers of other libraries what they should do?

> other Boost libraries are designed to act friendly with my library.

Right - but only at the source code and local build level.  For users 
using a portion of boost in their apps, they don't see it this way.
> 
> If you want to have a Boost library you need to maintain the style and 
> rules of Boost. 
Hmm - boost has a lot of rules related to the source code, directory 
structure, requirements for tests, etc.  I don't see this as being impacted.

> If you want to be a standalone library then you can 
> already do that, but don't call it Boost. If we want to say those 
> standalone libraries are somewhat related to Boost, then let's invent 
> another name and define more relaxed rule for them.

If one of the promoters of CMake want to make a "thing" which 
incorporates the most recent version of boost source code by reference, 
I wouldn't object.  They could call it "modular boost".  But I doubt 
they'll do it.  It's really only an appealing idea if someone else does 
the actual work.

Robert Ramey

> 
> Best,
> 
> Ion
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes: 
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>