Re: Boost, not LEWG

From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2020-06-29 12:57:48

On 2020-06-29 15:37, René Ferdinand Rivera Morell wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 3:47 AM Andrey Semashev via Boost 
> <boost_at_[hidden] <mailto:boost_at_[hidden]>> wrote:
> 
> All users already have a build system. Most have it in the form of an 
> IDE. It should be trivial to add the library's source files to your own 
> build system for review purposes. If the library design makes that hard 
> it should be a red flag.

Having the world compiled along with your application is one possible 
use case, but certainly not the only one. Many of us prefer to build 
external dependencies separately and only once instead of every time 
with the application.

One point where putting external sources in your project doesn't work is 
configure-time checks, which are implemented in the library build 
system. I see nothing wrong with such checks, and don't consider them a 
"red flag".

>     Furthermore, in order for users to be able to use Boost, they need a
>     way
>     to build it, that is compile and install artifacts of every library
>     in a
>     common place. There needs to be a common interface for doing this.
>     Currently, this is achieved by Boost.Build, so any new library has to
>     integrate with it. If it uses a different build system internally, it
>     must at least support being invoked from Boost.Build. Without this user
>     experience will be severely hampered.
> 
> 
> That can happen after acceptance. Expecting libraries to use B2, or any 
> particular build system, for review increases the barrier of entry.

It prevents reviewers from trying out the library. It might also suggest 
that the library have not been built or tested prior to the review.

>     [snip] 
> 
>     However,
>     personally I'm opposed to having mode than one build systems per
>     library, as that unnecessarily increases maintenance burden.
> 
> Having more than one build system in your library reduces the friction 
> for users. Hence it increases the set of likely users. I think that's 
> worth the maintenance burden.

Well, let's just say I disagree.