From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-04-21 02:33:34
Walter Landry wrote:
>> 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.
We (Boost.Build developers) are in fact very interested in a configure
system. However, like Dave, I seem to miss the point of your post.
Are you suggesting that we take your BuildSystem package and use it as basis
for a configure solution for Boost.Build. Then, can you join us at
Boost.Build mailing list
(http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-build), and give some
more details about how your configure system works. Even rough outline is
better than having to look at code that seem to lack any overview comments.
Are you suggesting that we borrow some ideas from your solution? Then can
you tell what are the most important ideas?
Are you suggesting that we take your configure solution as-is, and apply to
Boost? Then maybe you can write a small example? Looking at the
configure.py you've linked, I don't see any checking for external libraries
or headers, or something like that.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk