Re: Making Boost modular. IMPORTANT! URGENT! <insert-superlative-here>!

From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2024-01-14 10:54:18

On 1/14/24 08:41, René Ferdinand Rivera Morell via Boost wrote:
> Dear fellow Boost authors,
> 
> As some of you may have heard.. Some of us have been working on making
> it possible to fully consume Boost in a modular arrangement. First
> some FAQs about this:
> 
> Q: What is a "modular arrangement"?
> A: It's when the libraries can be used, and hence built, without
> creating the monolithic headers, without needing the root build files,
> and without needing the libraries to be arranged in the usual
> root/libs/<name>.
> 
> Q: Will a modular Boost remove the Boost release?
> A: No. The collection of libraries is still a single release. See
> recent discussions about this.
> 
> Q: Will this change the testing?
> A: No, unless you want to. You will still be able to test the same
> non-modular way. But you could also test the modular way.
> 
> Q: Will this require that we change the current Boost source structure?
> A: Yes. Unfortunately there is one restriction that adhering to a
> modular Boost requires. We would not allow sublibs. That is, that we
> can't support having libraries in root/libs/thing/<library> style
> locations. All libraries must be single libraries under the root/libs
> directory. Thankfully there's only a handful of such libraries. The
> root/libs/numeric/* group of libraries.

Just out of curiosity. Above you're saying that the "modular" Boost will
not require the root/libs/<name> structure, and yet the
root/libs/thing/<library> arrangement is a problem. Could you elaborate why?

Also, how will the "monolithic" Boost work if there is no
root/libs/<name> structure? Or is the structure still required for the
"monolithic" Boost?