Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] Boost CMake update
From: Rene Rivera (grafikrobot_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-10-04 18:11:44

On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 10:58 AM, Vinnie Falco via Boost <
boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Rene Rivera via Boost
> <boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> >> 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.

I really need more sleep.. I misread the individual versioning thing. I'm
all for modular stuff. But mixing versions is fraught with all kinds of
danger. So, yeah.. What Vinnie said :-)

-- Rene Rivera
-- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything
-- Robot Dreams -
-- rrivera/ (msn) - grafikrobot/aim,yahoo,skype,efnet,gmail

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