Subject: Re: [boost] Boost CMake update
From: Vinnie Falco (vinnie.falco_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-10-04 17:58:05
On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Rene Rivera via Boost
>> Anyhow, I'm sorry this went off a tangent. My original point was to
>> suggest that CMake (or any other future Boost build system) should
>> support modular builds, rather than expect Boost.X and Boost.Y always
>> have the same version, or be part of the same source tree.
> Couldn't agree more :-) And if that is a key requirement for the next build
> system it should be explicitly considered as such in future deliberations.
I disagree. I rather like the current system where there is the one
monolithic distribution, and you have confidence thanks to the testing
that all of those libraries from the same Boost version are going to
work together. Its an easier guarantee to uphold for the library
author and it is easier to understand for the user.
To break this contract and now say that X needs version so and so of
Y, and another version of Z, is I think to introduce needless
complexity. I'm not opposed to the idea of modular builds (i.e. get
just Boost.HTTPKit and Boost.Buffers without also acquiring
Boost.Asio) but I prefer the simplicity of keeping them all at the
same version. Update one, update all.