On 1/5/2015 1:42 PM, Peter Dimov wrote:
Daniel James wrote:
If we have a full package system, it might want to use a different file format.
I already have a full package system and it uses meta/libraries.json to generate the library list because those files already exist. :-)
I am all for the work you are doing by creating a Boost package manager but a "full" package system would allow library XXX's aa.aa release to be packaged with library YYY's bb.bb release if they were compatible. In other words while I greatly applaud and thank you for bpm's ability to package a subset of Boost from a given Boost tree, a fully modularized Boost would allow a specific version of an individual library, however that is eventually specified, to be packaged with a different specific version of another library if some dependency information indicated that they will work correctly with each other. I realize that this is something for the future but if we ever go to a model where individual Boost libraries can be distributed separately we will need a system whereby version information and dependency information is specified somewhere as part of the library's metadata.