From: Walter Landry (wlandry_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-04-20 19:38:51
David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> I'm always very curious when you make this reference (you've mentioned
> this before, right? Sounds familiar)
This is the first time I mentioned this system. In the past I just
wanted a configuration system of any kind. There is sort of one
already [1], but now there seems to be talk of implementing something
more ambitious. You can spend an eternity working on this problem. I
would prefer if Boost got out of the business of build systems, and
instead focused on just writing great libraries.
> as to what you expect to happen. As you know, boost has a
> significant investment and momentum in designing and developing
> Boost.Build, we have an extensive test suite, and we even have
> fairly complete (if imperfect) documentation. Surely you recognize
> that it's unlikely anyone is going to look at a system whose "docs
> are a bit sketchy, and it still needs work for mere mortals to be
> able to use," determine that it really holds greater potential than
> everything we've developed and currently have planned, convince the
> other invested parties to change direction, etc?
I am not suggesting getting rid of Boost.Build entirely. BuildSystem
would be used for configuration, and Boost.Build could still be used
for building. I use BuildSystem with SCons. Petsc uses it with make.
Cheers,
Walter Landry
wlandry_at_[hidden]
[1] For example, I can not figure out how to get it to use g++-4.1
instead of the default g++ (which is 4.0). This is really
unacceptable. It shouldn't take me more than 30 seconds to figure
that out.