There's a bunch of discussions that touch upon changing our distribution of boost in some way. All of these come with quite some effort, but I believe we could solve them with essentially one PR plus a special migrator.

Open discussions I'm aware of:

• Consolidate this feedstock with https://github.com/conda-forge/boost-feedstock (1, 2)
• Consolidate naming of outputs with Anaconda (also in the context of this¹)
• Solve the run-export situation; boost has a special role because boost can be used both as header-only (i.e. only in host), or compiled against (needs run-export)

Rough idea:

• Unify all in this feedstock
• Rename current boost-cpp --> libboost, and add a run-export
• Add header-only output to this feedstock (without the export) -- This is now called libboost-headers discussion & a (basically unanimous) vote
• Add boost from https://github.com/conda-forge/boost-feedstock (which already depends on boost-cpp)
  • Rename it to py-boost to match with Anaconda? Rename it to libboost-python, at least in conda-forge - I also think this name would be much clearer to communicate that it's for boost's python bindings, rather than boost itself.
• Add piggy-back to the next boost migration (finally found out how this should be done)
  • If boost-cpp only in host, turn into libboost-headers. If also in run, remove it there but use libboost in host.
  • Shepherd migration
• Profit

In short:

Am I overlooking something? Any thoughts/comments?
@conda-forge/boost-cpp @conda-forge/boost @conda-forge/core