Re: [Boost-build] Improving Boost Build?

From: Darren Garvey (lists.drrngrvy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-05-15 14:45:35

On 15/05/07, John Maddock <john_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> Irrespective of what happens with the CMake vs BBv2 debate, it's apparent
> that there is still plenty of support for bbv2: indeed, I would echo
> comments that it's a pleasure to use, provided you don't need to dig in
> and
> write new rules yourself :-)

It definitely seems that way. Heh.

2) Better docs.  Yes, I know it's been said before, but we really must get
> the existing toolsets and their options documented.  This need not take
> too
> long if someone would step up and volunteer to do it.

I've been looking through the code and was planning on compiling a list of
all the compiler flags, and a separate list of all '<whatever>' options
(features, I think?). If anyone else wants to have a go too then don't let
me stop you; I _may_ get sidetracked. :)

I get the feeling that jam, although nice and expressive for the top-level
Jamfiles, lends itself to spaghettism in some cases. A bit like perl, IMHO;
I'm having trouble finding any of the code 'logical'. That said, I'm not
suggesting any alternatives. Hopefully documentation is all we need.

5) More BBv2 developers :-)  I actually think we do tools rather well - both
> quickbook and BBv2 are so very nearly where they need to be, but just need
> that final push that only more developers (and a wider audience) can
> bring.
> Part of the problem here is that Boost attracts folks interested in C++
> libraries, and who don't necessarily want to spend their time hacking
> Jamfiles or whatever.  I'm not sure how solve this, unless maybe these
> tools
> can acquire a life of their own outside of Boost as well as within it.

There was talk on the Boost wiki about a python rewrite. Has that stalled?
If so, are there any public code fragments of it about, anyone?

Regards,
Darren