On 6/19/2017 1:21 AM, Stefan Seefeld via Boost wrote:
On 18.06.2017 16:45, Robert Ramey via Boost wrote:
On 6/18/17 1:34 PM, Edward Diener via Boost wrote:
Let's be realistic, this is a real problem which only some sort of Boost individual library versioning system for starters can hope to solve.
If I may be so bold as to summarize your point:
In order to distribute boost as individual libraries as opposed to a monolithic set, individual library versioning will sooner or later have to be adopted.
I think this is indisputable. But I don't think we have to worry about in practice. Whatever we do, it will take sometime to get there and, if we ever do get there, I think that adding this feature won't be a big problem. Of course if we don't ever get there, we've got nothing nothing to worry about.
I watch (somewhat in horror, I have to admit) the follow-up mails as they predictably derail into un-manageable scenarios. So I'd like to point out that my proposal in no way implies any particular release policy, i.e. whether individual libraries are released independently or not. So when you dive into that discussion, please be aware that it's entirely orthogonal to the proposal at hand. Whether or not releasing Boost libraries as independent entities has no bearing on the usefulness or feasibility of modularising Boost.
You did mention in your OP: 5) Invoke a command to install it 6) Invoke a command to package it (optional) Maybe you need to be more specific about what you mean in each case. It sure sounds to me, by the 2 items above, as if you meant to suggest that you could distribute an individual Boost library ( and its dependencies ) separately from the current monolithic Boost tree. If so, I am suggesting that without a very well worked out versioning system for individual Boost libraries such a plan will end up with serious problems for the end-user.
Thank you, Stefan