Subject: [boost] CMake, modular Boost, and other stories
From: Mike (mike.dev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2019-04-23 21:28:23
I'm very much in favor of separate packages.
James is right, that - at the moment - most boost
libraries are so tightly coupled that they can't really
be treated as separate libraries, but when changing things it is just
as important to ask, "Where do you want to go?" as "where you are now".
I for one very much hope that boost (at least the libraries that
are actively maintained) will become less coupled
in the future, such that when I just want to use
library X, the rest of boost doesn't come as a
dependency with it. It also fits the management
structure (or rather the lack thereof) much better.
Also, the mechanisms for modular boost distributons already exist
through e.g. vcpkg and
conan, so I don't see the problem in also providing
independent cmake configfiles.
Finally: About how many libraries are we talking here anyway? Only the
compiled ones get their separate config file - correct?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk