Re: [boost] To modularize, or not to modularize. What is the plan?

Subject: Re: [boost] To modularize, or not to modularize. What is the plan?
From: Mateusz Loskot (mateusz_at_[hidden])
Date: 2019-05-07 18:34:06

On 19-05-07 07:57:35, James E. King III via Boost wrote:
>On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 7:54 PM Rene Rivera via Boost
><boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>
>> A modular Boost, to me, means a Boost that first and foremost a collection
>> of independently consumable C++ libraries.
>> ...
>> What would it take to reach that modular goal? Why do I keep saying we've
>> been working on this for ages and ages? Briefly here's what it would take
>> to get there (not in any particular order):
>>
>> * Abandon the single header include tree.
>> * Abandon the monolithic build infrastructure.
>> * Ban relative use of inter-library dependencies.
>> * Explicit declaration of inter-library dependencies.
>> * Strict normalized library layout.
>> * Remove, and ban, dependency cycles at the inter-library user consumable
>> granularity.
>
>I would also add:
>
> [...]
>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).

And, still incapable to support VS2019 (as I checked a few days ago)...

My point being, please do not make bind Boost to any specific
package manager, no matter how awsome one may seem to be.
Instead, I'll quote Rene:

"We should probably support them [P&DM] by making Boost easier to
package by making Boost modular."

Best regards,
-- 
Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net
Fingerprint=C081 EA1B 4AFB 7C19 38BA  9C88 928D 7C2A BB2A C1F2