From: Andreas Pokorny (andreas.pokorny_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-01-01 16:13:28
On Thu, Dec 16, 2004 at 10:42:13AM -0500, David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> 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...
Nope of course not, pkg-config, or the boost-config would allow simple
support of custom writen makefiles, autoconf, scons, and whatever build
system allows calling applications and evaluating its output. This is
a small step for boost, but a huge step for all boost users out there!
> 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.
Ok I am an intersted party, how can I get infos like the path to the
installed libraries, the successfully built targets, the toolset used
I plan to write a small application that opens from a dedicated
directory e.g. prefix/lib/boost-config/ all files, where each one contains
build and install information of a deployment of boost.
This will allow having several versions of boost, or boost with
different toolsets installed on a single system.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk