From: Stefan Seefeld (seefeld_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-03-03 13:12:30
Jeff Garland wrote:
> 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'm not sure I understand. Somewhere in the boost repository there are MS project
files, too. And MSVC is hardly required for boost.
>> 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?
I thought the ultimate interest is in ways to assist developing *with* boost,
not developing boost. Thus, we are talking about tools that help to integrate
boost-specific compilation flags into existing build systems, i.e. things
akin to pkg-config etc.
-- ...ich hab' noch einen Koffer in Berlin...