From: Neal Becker (ndbecker2_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-09-13 08:38:09
David Abrahams wrote:
> On the Boost.Build list we were just discussing the fact that some
> people otherwise inclined towards Boost have chosen Scons over
> Boost.Build. It would be useful for us to understand some of the
> reasons why, if some of you wouldn't mind letting us know. No flames,
I use scons for my projects, which include usage of boost. I have not used
scons to build boost itself, although I have built some of the stuff that
was placed outside the boost tree using scons.
I guess there are 2 questions:
1) scons vs make
2) scons vs bjam
I suppose for boost, issue 1 is moot. I assume boost doesn't use make
because make isn't very portable (to no-unix-like environments)
So, that leaves issue 2.
It looks very baroque. I don't know anything about it. I don't have much
interest in learning yet another build system that I'm pretty sure I'd
never use for any other purpose.
Does pretty much everything I want.
It is quite portable, because it is python. If you have python you have a
The "makefile" equivalents _are_ python scripts. Therefore, you can do
anything you can do with python in your scripts. That means, you can
easily, portably, do anything at all.
scons has some (minor) limitations. You can have build dirs separate from
src dirs, but there are some restrictions on the arrangement of those
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk