Re: [boost] boost development process / scope

From: Felipe Magno de Almeida (felipe.m.almeida_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-05-04 22:20:23

On 5/4/07, Robert Ramey <ramey_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Eric Niebler 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:
> >
>
> For what its worth - and just to keep the pot boiling - I use VC IDE
> for building and testing the serialization library.  I only use boost
> build for generating the table of results for all the compilers.
>
> I did have to setup a very large VC solution with a project for each
> test and variations for archives, etc which was a huge pain.  But
> it is very convenient now that I have it setup.

Also, FWIW. All my projects are using bbv2. But since I use VC IDE, I
have a solution just to group projects and files (but no building).
I believe that bbv2 is a much more secure building system. Being
bitten sometimes with different macros and compiler options, now I
only use bbv2.
Besides, bbv2 allows much more flexibility for self-configuration of
the project building, which is only possible because bbv2 is built in
jam itself. We can have as low-level or high-level as we need. If only
there were more documentation.

>
> Robert Ramey

Sorry for the noise,
Best regards,
-- 
Felipe Magno de Almeida