From: Stefan Seefeld (seefeld_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-06-14 11:34:21
David Abrahams wrote:
> The problem with adding another tool is that information can all be
> generated by the build system for dependent projects. Trying to
> replicate that capability externally and keep the two in synch would
> be a nightmare. That's why this should be done with the build tool.
> On the other hand, I'm not opposed to using a front-end atop
> Boost.Build for this purpose.
I agree that duplicating the data manually would be a maintenance nightmare.
On the other hand, I don't think users of boost libraries should be required
to know about bjam either.
What I imagine is some 'database' (m4 file for autoconf, pkg-config file,
whatever) that is *generated* by bjam as part of the build process.
Unix developers are quite used to the idea: tools such as pkg-config
work exactly like that. Appropriate files are generated during configuration /
installation, and can be further tuned during the packaging, if necessary.
Again, I'm thinking of platforms such as Fedora or Debian, which both have
their own package management tools. If I want to develop software that
is to use boost rpm or deb packages, I'd much appreciate some standardization
of how to query the boost package(s) about required flags. If this isn't
done as part of the boost project itself, packagers will do it, but probably
not in a consistent way.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk