From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-12-16 17:01:53
Stefan Seefeld wrote:
> David Abrahams wrote:
>> The only real problem now is that there are a plethora of different
>> build / configuration systems out there. Should BBv2 try to cater to
>> each one? We could generate pkg-config files in addition to Jamfiles,
>> oh and we could generate Makefiles and autoconf files and Visual Studio
>> Projects and Metrowerks projects and...
> I don't think comparing pkg-config to Jamfiles (or Makefiles for that
> matter) is very meaningful, as pkg-config is just a tiny tool to be
> used by arbitrary build systems. On the other hand, providing a Jamfile
> pretty much requires the user to use a bjam (or even BB ?) based build
> system, or am I missing something ?
No, I think you're correct.
>> I think the answer is that we (the BB maintainers) should only feel
>> responsible for generating the Jamfiles, and we should invite interested
>> parties to submit Boost.Build support for the other things.
> I'm not the right person to tell BB developers what their responsibility
> is, but I believe providing a more neutral way to access required
> compiler flags for easy integration into *any* build system would be
> very much appreciated by everybody.
I see your point. I guess once you're dealing with a particular
prebuilt file, there's little need for a platform-/compiler-neutral
description of how it was built.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk