From: Jeff Garland (jeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-03-03 12:05:00
Stefan Seefeld wrote:
> Jeff Garland wrote:
>> Bjørn Roald wrote:
>>> Jeff Garland wrote:
>>> By the way, http://www.trolltech.com has a similar solution called qmake
>>> which is used in Qt. This may or may not be more appropriate in an
>>> optional add-on to Boost.Build.
>> Non-technical issue: MPC has a boost compatible license -- I doubt QT does.
> Unless I completely miss the point I don't think licensing issues play any
> role here. What is suggested is not to integrate any boost code with any Qt
> code, but instead to provide an interface for boost *users* to more easily
> access build parameters used when developing *with* boost libraries.
Well, perhaps not, but in the past we've been fairly averse to requiring other
tools form other sources so ultimately some parts of these systems might need
to be in the boost tools tree.
> I don't think there is much value in providing alternative build tools to
> build boost itself. If building boost is an issue for people, let's
> 1) enhance boost.build itself and
> 2) provide more convenient (e.g. modular) binary boost packages.
I mostly agree with this in that a) most boost libs still require no building,
b) there's a windows installer now available from boost consulting, c) various
*nix systems have binaries available (I can do apt-get on my Linux system one
lib at a time for the 'built libs' -- others can use RPMs).
So given all that is it really worth pursuing this stuff at all?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk