Re: [boost] To modularize, or not to modularize. What is the plan?

On 19-05-07 07:57:35, James E. King III via Boost wrote:

On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 7:54 PM Rene Rivera via Boost wrote:

...

A modular Boost, to me, means a Boost that first and foremost a collection of independently consumable C++ libraries. ... What would it take to reach that modular goal? Why do I keep saying we've been working on this for ages and ages? Briefly here's what it would take to get there (not in any particular order):

* Abandon the single header include tree. * Abandon the monolithic build infrastructure. * Ban relative use of inter-library dependencies. * Explicit declaration of inter-library dependencies. * Strict normalized library layout. * Remove, and ban, dependency cycles at the inter-library user consumable granularity.

I would also add:

[...] It would be easier in the beginning if everyone agreed to target one distribution system, such as conan, which is capable of handling the direct dependencies, capable of downloading all direct and transitive dependencies, and can generate additional build system details for consuming what got downloaded (in make and cmake, and others).

And, still incapable to support VS2019 (as I checked a few days ago)... My point being, please do not make bind Boost to any specific package manager, no matter how awsome one may seem to be. Instead, I'll quote Rene: "We should probably support them [P&DM] by making Boost easier to package by making Boost modular." Best regards, -- Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net Fingerprint=C081 EA1B 4AFB 7C19 38BA 9C88 928D 7C2A BB2A C1F2