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: Rene Rivera (grafikrobot_at_[hidden])
Date: 2019-05-08 01:02:50

On Tue, May 7, 2019 at 7:38 PM Gavin Lambert via Boost <
boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> On 8/05/2019 12:23, Rene Rivera wrote:
> >> On 8/05/2019 01:55, Robert Ramey wrote:
> >>> I'm not seeing this at all. I don't think any solution which requires a
> >>> user to download, build and execute b2 is going to fly.
> >>
> >> Unless you want to limit yourself to the subset of Boost which is
> >> header-only, or commit to supplying binary packages for every
> >> conceivable combination of compiler and platform, then I don't think
> >> that there is any alternative.
> >
> > Sure there is.. You could add all the source files from the standard
> source
> > directory and plop them into your own build tool. And hit the "big red
> > build button".
>
> And that won't work because it will be using the wrong settings.
>

There are no wrong settings. If your library can't work with the settings
users choose to provide it's a problem with your library.

Given that current Boost release archives already require users to run
> b2 in almost all cases, I don't see why this aversion exists.
>

I obviously don't have an aversion to supporting use of b2. But I've always
advocated for the freedom of users to select whatever tools they choose.
Because requiring that they run b2, or any specific build system, limits
the set of possible users.

-- 
-- Rene Rivera
-- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything
-- Robot Dreams - http://robot-dreams.net