On Wednesday 13 May 2015 14:42:43 Stefan Seefeld wrote:
On 13/05/15 02:23 PM, Edward Diener wrote:
On 5/13/2015 1:52 PM, Stefan Seefeld wrote:
That's for each library maintainer to determine and to encode. Of course, I would assume boost to provide shareable tools to make it easier to do this, but boost is hardly the only project facing such tasks. In fact, the entire Free Software world had to solve this for many years.
Sorry but that is just skipping over a real problem. If there are solutions that solve the problem then Boost needs to adopt one of those solutions.
I strongly disagree. "Boost needs to adopt" already sounds very wrong to me, in the context of my proposal where Boost is little more than an umbrella org.
I think you will have to make a choice ultimately. You can't realistically have a zoo of tools used by different libraries and expect them all work together nicely. If library A uses a dependency tracking tool X and depends on library B then X should be able to handle dependencies of B as well and so on to the leaf dependencies. I'm pretty sure the same would be desired for other tools, like build systems. If it doesn't work that way then you can pretty much drop the whole idea of modularity and follow the path of copy/pasting the code, something Google likes to do.