Re: Boost, not LEWG

From: René Ferdinand Rivera Morell (grafikrobot_at_[hidden])
Date: 2020-06-29 13:03:40

On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 7:58 AM Andrey Semashev via Boost <
boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> 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.
>

After *acceptance* use a package manager.

> 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".
>

I see them as 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.
>

It would be rather unlikely for that to be the case given the preceding
history of a library before getting to the review stage.

> >     [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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>

-- 
-- René Ferdinand Rivera Morell
-- Don't Assume Anything  -- No Supone Nada
-- Robot Dreams - http://robot-dreams.net