Subject: [boost] To modularize, or not to modularize. What is the plan?
From: Mike (mike.dev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2019-05-07 15:43:11
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 07. Mai 2019 um 13:57 Uhr
> Von: "James E. King III via Boost" <boost_at_[hidden]>
> It would be easier in the beginning if everyone agreed to target one
> distribution system, such as conan, which is capable of handling the
> direct dependencies, capable of downloading all direct and transitive
> dependencies, and can generate additional build system details for
> consuming what got downloaded (in make and cmake, and others).
âDon't package your libraries, write packagable libraries!â
Imho the question should not be
"How can system XY be used to distribute boost in a modular fashion?",
"What can be done to make it easier for systems *like XY* to distribute
boost in a modular fashion?"
I.e. I don't think boost should not start to depend on any particular
package manager for its distribution and even less so for its build system
support. It should simply make sure that distribution via any package
manager requires as little special treatment as possible.
E.g. (as Rene already mentioned) via providing dependency information
in an easy to parse format, following a standard directory layout, keeping
build logic simple and no dependency cycles.
Most of this is already the case and again, I think most "dependencies"
on serialization can simply be ignored, but there are other ones that are
probably more important to address (e.g. between math and multiprecision,
but I haven't looked into the details).
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk