Boost logo

Boost :

From: Walter Landry (wlandry_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-04-20 19:38:51

David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> I'm always very curious when you make this reference (you've mentioned
> this before, right? Sounds familiar)

This is the first time I mentioned this system. In the past I just
wanted a configuration system of any kind. There is sort of one
already [1], but now there seems to be talk of implementing something
more ambitious. You can spend an eternity working on this problem. I
would prefer if Boost got out of the business of build systems, and
instead focused on just writing great libraries.

> as to what you expect to happen. As you know, boost has a
> significant investment and momentum in designing and developing
> Boost.Build, we have an extensive test suite, and we even have
> fairly complete (if imperfect) documentation. Surely you recognize
> that it's unlikely anyone is going to look at a system whose "docs
> are a bit sketchy, and it still needs work for mere mortals to be
> able to use," determine that it really holds greater potential than
> everything we've developed and currently have planned, convince the
> other invested parties to change direction, etc?

I am not suggesting getting rid of Boost.Build entirely. BuildSystem
would be used for configuration, and Boost.Build could still be used
for building. I use BuildSystem with SCons. Petsc uses it with make.

Walter Landry

[1] For example, I can not figure out how to get it to use g++-4.1
    instead of the default g++ (which is 4.0). This is really
    unacceptable. It shouldn't take me more than 30 seconds to figure
    that out.

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at