On 10/07/2007, at 15:29, Hubert Feyrer wrote:

> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007, Julio M. Merino Vidal wrote:
>> Now that you bring that up... we'd shorten boost's build times a  
>> lot by splitting each binary library in its own package.  It  
>> should be fairly trivial, but when I proposed it people seemed to  
>> dislike the idea :-(
>
> IIRC the monotone folks worked on getting rid of boost altogether,  
> which I'd prefer over surgery on boost.

IIRC, they got rid of the date_time library only (and can't remember  
the exact reasons).  I'm not sure getting rid of all Boost usage is  
the plan, though.  Some of the functionality offered by it is really  
great and simplifies code a lot.

Anyway, the boost surgery we are talking about is, I think, trivial.   
The current Makefiles already allow building a library individually  
(see boost-python), so adding packages for every binary library is a  
fairly easy task.  As a result, we'd get finer-grained dependencies,  
which is a good thing in my eyes.  (A while ago we discussed that  
such things should be achieved by being able to generate many  
different binary packages from a single source one, but we are not  
there yet.)

>> BTW, extatic?  What was the correct word? ;-)
>
> Extatic? Hyped-up? I don't care. :)
>

I've been told it's ecstatic, hence why I couldn't find it in the  
dictionary ;-)

-- 
Julio M. Merino Vidal <jmmv84@gmail.com>