From: Jeff Garland (jeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-05-09 14:50:50
Stefan Seefeld wrote:
> Doug Gregor wrote:
>> The only one I'm not sure about is:
>> - It should be possible to build multiple variants of multiple
>> targets with multiple compilers from a single build command.
>> I think this particular requirement is actually a problem itself: it
>> only really helps Boost developers that want to quickly test on a
>> couple of compilers. The majority of users will typically use Boost
>> one just one compiler (especially those users picking up Boost for
>> the first time, who are most put-off by a complicated build system).
>> It's just as easy, if not easier, to keep separate build trees (one
>> per compiler) rather than cram everything into a single build tree.
> FWIW, I fully agree. This is a pure convenience that could easily be
> added on top by some simple canned command (or script).
> There is nothing in such a multi-build that would profit from
> a single command, no shared dependencies, etc., so there shouldn't
> be any reason to make that a requirement on the build system itself.
Having one tree per compiler will seriously break the regression test system,
not to mention making it more resource intense for those that build/test
several compilers on a machine. Not saying it can't be layered on, but I
don't think having 3 trees to run 3 compilers is a good solution.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk