From: Glen Fernandes (glen.fernandes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2020-12-01 22:56:02
On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 4:46 PM Antony Polukhin <antoshkka_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2020, 00:23 Glen Fernandes <glen.fernandes_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 4:16 PM Antony Polukhin.
>> > Wich brings me to a less radical idea: we may simplify acceptance of dependenceless library clones. Next step would be to provide predefined bcp'ed subsets of libraries (boost 17, boost 23?)
>> One option is for that other library (DLL for C++17+) to still live
>> under the boostorg/dll repository - i.e. it doesn't need to have its
>> own repository.
> You mean folder structure like
> Would the bcp treat dependencies of include/boost/dll17 separately from include/boost/dll?
Yes, i.e. if we establish some convention like that, then the tools
should understand that.
This gives people much more freedom than have to have up to M*n
repositories (for n Boost libraries, and M different minimum-supported
standards) and especially have to go through an additional (M-1)
formal reviews for what is really the same library just switching
boost:: components to std:: ones.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk