Re: [boost] boost development process / scope

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-05-04 19:45:13

on Fri May 04 2007, Eric Niebler <eric-AT-boost-consulting.com> wrote:

> Stefan Seefeld wrote:
>> So, in the spirit of 'lessons learned', I'd like to invite readers
>> to imagine how life would be if the boost development would use
>> existing (i.e. external) tools, if possible. (Example: docbook, rst,
>> etc., instead of qbk; make instead of bjam, etc.)
>
> If I had nothing but free time, I'd investigate using CMake instead
> of, or in addition to, Boost.Build. From the website:
>
>> CMake generates native makefiles and workspaces that can be used in
>> the compiler environment of your choice. CMake is quite
>> sophisticated: it is possible to support complex environments
>> requiring system configuration, pre-processor generation, code
>> generation, and template instantiation.
>
> With CMake, we could deliver makefiles and vc project files, so people 
> can use their own build environments instead of having to learn ours. I 
> think this would remove a barrier to Boost's adoption. This article 
> describes the experience of the KDE team switching to CMake:
>
>    http://dot.kde.org/1172083974/
>
> Caveat: I haven't actually used CMake. I'd need to investigate it.

Me neither, but I think it's an attractive idea.  Boost shouldn't be
in the build tool business, really.  We only got into it because
no 3rd party tools could do the job we needed.

The questions are,

  * what are our needs, really?
  * can CMake fulfill them?
  * if not, can we give up a few of those needs? ;-)

If we wanted to conduct such an inquiry,
http://www.boost.org/tools/build/v1/build_system.htm#design_criteria
might be a good place to start.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com
Don't Miss BoostCon 2007! ==> http://www.boostcon.com