On 30 May 2015 at 17:57, Peter Dimov wrote:
Sorry, I meant by discussion of completeness whether you could arbitrarily fetch any individual Boost library with ideal dependencies fetched, and that the result compiled and worked perfectly. Some Boost libraries work perfectly with bpm and others do not, or at least someone at the meeting said so.
The dependency graph in my example bpm distribution doesn't track the dependencies in the test/ directories. This is on purpose as it results in fewer dependencies being installed if you just want to use the library and not run its tests.
Hang on, are you saying here that bpm is fully functional for all Boost libraries right now? If so, why aren't we shipping bpm based fully modular Boost right now?
(Bringing in Boost.Test as a dependency brings in the world.) But if you're using the ability to run the library's tests as an indication of whether bpm has worked, then yes, you'll find that it hasn't worked for some.
If the sole roadblock remaining to a bpm based fully modular Boost release is Boost.Test, then I think none of us at that meeting were aware of that. And if that is indeed the case, then that puts a *very* different spin on things indeed, and you should tell the Boost steering committee via that mailing list as that has enormous relevance to their deliberations. I'll put this another way round: most libraries using Boost.Test use like 2% of the functionality. A quick and dirty emulation of Boost.Test like the one in APIBind could replace the Boost.Test dependency for almost all libraries in Boost with relatively little work. In other words, if I have understood you right, Boost could be a fully modular distro as early as end of this year if Boost were to award a small grant for the grunt work involved. Do let me know. I am now excited. Niall -- ned Productions Limited Consulting http://www.nedproductions.biz/ http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/