Re: [boost] proposal - modularize Boost build system

Subject: Re: [boost] proposal - modularize Boost build system
From: Stefan Seefeld (stefan_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-06-20 12:35:31

On 20.06.2017 08:22, Rene Rivera via Boost wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 7:02 AM, Stefan Seefeld via Boost <
> boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
>> I think that's part of my point: At this point in time, who actually
>> needs the entirety of Boost built and installed as a single entity,
>> other than by habit ? There are so many different libraries, targeting
>> different audiences. Is there anybody using all of them ? Would it
>> really hurt anyone if they had to install  Boost.MPI, Boost.Compute, and
>> Boost.Python (to name a few domain-specific ones) separately ?
>>
> There have been a number of people who've expressed the experience and need
> to *only* use Boost as a single entity in precisely these cmake/modular
> threads. Who I would point out I've never seen post before. So it tells you
> something about how strong their position is.
Yes, of course ! I do understand the advantage of Boost being a single
entity. And to some there is just that advantage, as they don't have to
deal with the disadvantage(s). So in the end it's a balancing act where
we have to weigh the different arguments.

I still think we are getting ahead of ourselves, as my proposal wasn't
(and still isn't) about replacing build systems (even though it is
definitely motivated by that option), but it's about modularizing the
process, to make it easier to build components (i.e., libraries)
stand-alone.

Once that is possible, and once people start to actually do build (and
use) components separately, our perspective on what Boost is and how it
is being used may change.

        Stefan

-- 
      ...ich hab' noch einen Koffer in Berlin...