From: Gennadiy Rozental (gennadiy.rozental_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-05-09 20:28:03
Let me add my 2 cents on the topic.
1. I believe CMake proponents are simply kidding themselves. Changing boost
make system with all it's unique and complicated requirements to anything
else would require up to half a year of extensive development. Even based on
2. I - as build system user - do not want to know ANYTHING about native
build tools. I need single command that results in library compilation
wherever I am on.
3. Do we (boost developers) really have any problems with BBv2? If more docs
are required, wouldn't it be easier to write them instead of wasting time
jumping from one build system to another?
4. What advantages does CMake have? I personally know nothing about it.
That being said, I do like us to consider independent library versioning.
And it does require support from make system. Does CMake could be ant help
in this regard?
P.S. Another "but": I do not see any problems with having some developers to
present .cmake file in their build directories so that CMake aware user's
life is simplified.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk