Subject: Re: [boost] To modularize, or not to modularize. What is the plan?
From: Pete Bartlett (pete_at_[hidden])
Date: 2019-05-10 21:47:21
> On 10 May 2019, at 14:12, Peter Dimov via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> PS the other day I got the equivalent of "can't use mp11, it's too big." Something tells me that a "modular" Boost will still remain "too bigâ
A single anecdata point from one type of user:
Iâve been introducing Boost into large corporates for over 15 years. Typically one privileged person/account brings a release through the corporate firewall (so thatâs one person needing to do one approved download). Then a fairly stable standard build b2-based script is run to create binaries for the compilers+compile flags we care about. All libraries are built. The headers and libs are then dumped somewhere internal for the development teams to use. The Boost part of those teamsâ CMakeLists.txts are pretty straightforward: one line for includes and another for a lib dir.
To be honest the prospect of a modular Boost gives me the jitters - am I going to replace one open-source-use approval, one download, one build, one include path and one lib path by 100 of each of those things??
Now some might argue that my problem should be with âsillyâ corporate policies rather than modular Boost. But many Boost users can do nothing to change those policies.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk