Re: [boost] Release Tools Analysis Part I: Build systems

From: Rene Rivera (grafikrobot_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-08-08 16:29:19

Maik Beckmann wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, 8. August 2007 21:26:28 schrieb Rene Rivera:
>> That doesn't
>> remove the need for us to test that Boost builds and works correctly in
>> all those other build systems. And when it doesn't work users are not
>> likely going to bother Kitware, they will complain to us.
> 
> Well, this is valid for all software boost uses and doesn't maintain. This is 
> OK if it work well, IMHO. 

Yes, in particular we know we test considerably less platform plus build 
combinations than users actually deal with. And this is problem I've 
mentioned before. We should consider not only the immediate features of 
the make system, but also how it impacts the overall development 
procedures. And I'm afraid there is a tendency to ignore how we deal 
with the libraries after we release them. I personally think that *any* 
meta-build system is detrimental to productivity. But it's not my 
decision, I just want to make sure others consider the consequences of 
doing such a switch to their daily lives in developing and maintaining 
their code.

> However, its a good point!  
> 
> Unfortunately Doug is in charge with Trac and Subversion, so I suggest to wait 
> with further discussions on pros and cons about CMake until these issues are 
> stabilized and he has time to participate.

Why? It's not a Cmake question, it's a problem with any meta-build 
system. I certainly hope others can see the general issues when consider 
a build system which directly runs the tools vs. a build system that 
generates files for other build systems.

-- 
-- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything
-- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com
-- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com
-- 102708583/icq - grafikrobot/aim - grafikrobot/yahoo