Subject: Re: [boost] What's happened to Ryppl?
From: Dave Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-01-25 12:54:13
[Redirecting replies to the boost developers' list; we should have
been there nearly from the beginning. Anyone who wants to see the
earlier parts of the thread should look to
Could you please use standard quoting? I am having trouble separating
the parts you wrote below from what Eric wrote.
At Tue, 25 Jan 2011 09:06:19 -0800,
Robert Ramey wrote:
> Eric Niebler wrote:
> A lot of work remains --- that is, if it's also our intention to
> modularize boost and have a functioning cmake build system, too.
> At least, modularization seems like it would be a good thing to do at the
> same time. And nobody is working on a bjam system for modularized boost.
> *** I don't believe there is any reason to couple modularization of boost to
> any particular build system.
> I use bjam to build and test the serialization library on my local machine.
> I just set the current directory to libs/serialization/test and run bjam
> with some switches. This builds/updates the prerequisites to the
> serialization library, builds the serialization library, then builds and
> runs the tests. (and in my case builds a table of test results since i use
> library status.sh). I'm would expect that I could the same with CTest.
> The key issue is that the build system permit the building of just one
> "module" (and its necessary prerequisites). Bjam (and hopefully ctest) does
> this now. Building of "all" of boost is just the building of each module.
> Building of some alternative "distribution" is just the building of each of
> the component modules (and their prequisites). There isn't even any reason
> why each module has to use the same build system.
> <idle speculation>
> Is it feasible to have both git and svn development going on
> simultaneously? Two-way synchronization from non-modularized svn boost
> to modularized git boost? Is that pure insanity?
> </idle speculation>
> *** By the same token, a "modularized" boost needn't require that all
> modules use the same source control system. Ideally, the build for each
> module would use checkout/update the local copy of the module according to
> the "configuration file" (...v2 or ctest.?).
> Once the procedure for for building a module is moved to the module rather
> than invoked "from the top", modularization can proceed incrementally.
> Robert Ramey
> > _______________________________________________
> > Boost-users mailing list
> > Boost-users_at_[hidden]
> > http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users
> Boost-users mailing list
-- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk