On 6/18/17 2:15 PM, Ion Gaztañaga via Boost wrote:
If you want to release your library individually, then it's no longer Boost.
Hmmm - now we're getting down to "what is boost" ....
Boost is a coherent library collection. some might differ on this point You are free to release your library individually, just like ASIO does.
thank you You'll need to somehow
solve dependency and compatibility issues on other boost libraries yourself.
Hmmm - honestly, boost doesn't do as much in this area as one would think. Bjam does handle dependencies - true. Compatibity is managed through test. I don't think any one as suggested changing any of this. I think (though I'm not actually sure) that this discussion is to facilitate the usage of CMake by boost users to don't want to be boost developers but rather "just" boost users.
If git clone is huge for Boost, then it's a git user problem, because it's a decentralized VCS, just use a shallow clone.
If we further modularize Boost libraries, then someone will propose that each library should choose its VCS, bug system and mailing list.
Actually, I already proposed this some time ago. In fact we already have much of that. For example, for bugs some libraries use git issues while others use the traditional system. Each library chooses it's own documentation tools. The git submodule implementation could be seen as each library having it's own VCS just tied together at the top.
I don't like each library to use a different build tool (CMake, SCons, etc...) I like the fact that I can write my test jamfile triggers the creation of any dependent library just because all of them use bjam and
we're not talking about what you want to do as a boost developer. You can do whatever you want. The question is should you, boost or anyone else tell developers of other libraries what they should do?
other Boost libraries are designed to act friendly with my library.
Right - but only at the source code and local build level. For users using a portion of boost in their apps, they don't see it this way.
If you want to have a Boost library you need to maintain the style and rules of Boost.
Hmm - boost has a lot of rules related to the source code, directory structure, requirements for tests, etc. I don't see this as being impacted.
If you want to be a standalone library then you can already do that, but don't call it Boost. If we want to say those standalone libraries are somewhat related to Boost, then let's invent another name and define more relaxed rule for them.
If one of the promoters of CMake want to make a "thing" which incorporates the most recent version of boost source code by reference, I wouldn't object. They could call it "modular boost". But I doubt they'll do it. It's really only an appealing idea if someone else does the actual work. Robert Ramey
Best,
Ion
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost