On 03/19/2010 09:49 AM, Vladimir Prus wrote:
Daniel James wrote:
I'll reply to this properly later, I just want to say that we should also take into account the difficultly we cause distributions. I was surprised to see us mentioned alongside much more high profile projects here:
http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/290
But I don't think it was a complement. We didn't pay much attention to this post at the time, but probably should have:
There's no doubt Debian folks or any other packagers will not be happy about 90 libraries on a separate release schedule.
They deal with many, many more libraries for Perl, Python, Ruby, Java and others. The major Linux distributions would not bat an eye at 90 libraries. Here are the results from Fedora 12: $ yum list "perl-*" | grep -E "noarch|x86_64" | wc -l 1481 $ yum list "python-*" | grep -E "noarch|x86_64" | wc -l 423 Most of those Perl modules likely come from CPAN. Apache alone likely provides 90+ libraries for the Java platform. What the distributors (and users!) want from Boost is some indication of what parts are stable, what parts are under active development, and what are NSFW. My guess is that the distributors might package up 1/2 - 2/3 of Boost, depending on popularity, if they were available for individual consumption. Speaking of Apache, the Apache incubator process would be a great process to adopt for Boost. It gives projects exposure, a chance for major follow-on work to occur, feedback from users, and for interfaces to settle down before being blessed as full projects. A similar process for Boost might address some of the developer issues and some of the user issues at the same time. There is no way *Boost* could currently deal with 90 libraries on separate release schedules given the inter-dependencies that exist between the libraries. Rob