From: Kevin Heifner (heifner_k_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-03-22 12:24:13
Vladimir Prus wrote:
> How is this different from CMake (http://www.cmake.org/HTML/Index.html) or
> from QMake (http://www.trolltech.com/products/qt/qmake.html)?
Its similar to CMake and QMake only simpler and more powerful.
> The same applies to Boost.Build -- there's just one file.
The difference is that MPC is simpler (of course others may
disagree that its simpler) and can generate platform specific
> This can be more then offset by the idea to support two different build
> systems. If folks (specifically MSVC users) would benefit from having
> special files, then Boost.Build can be modified to generate those files.
> OTOH, I don't remember such requests on Boost.Build mailing list.
If Boost.Build could generate MSVC files that would be great.
> In order to support bjam output, you need to have as expressive input
> language as bjam's, and we already have bjam's input language.
Yes, but it could be simplified.
> Finally, do you have a setup that can both build boost and run regression
> tests? If not, the it's a tricky question if binaries created by your tool
> will pass the same regression tests that binaries created by Boost.Build.
Step one was to be able to create the main Boost libs and get the
MPC files checked into Boost CVS. If there is interest we can
look into creating MPC files for the tests. We may do that anyway.
I can certainly understand not wanting to maintain more than one
build file. That is the main point of Boost.Build and one of the
key features of MPC. Boost.Build is just missing a key feature
that we at least find very useful, that is generating MSVC (and
other) specific files.
There was some talk of adding (*.sln,*.vcproj) files to Boost
CVS. Hopefully before that was ever done, MPC files would be
Thanks for the consideration,
-- Kevin Heifner heifner @ ociweb.com http://heifner.blogspot.com Object Computing, Inc. (OCI) www.ociweb.com