From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-05-10 07:01:24
on Wed May 09 2007, Doug Gregor <dgregor-AT-osl.iu.edu> wrote:
>> In the same sense that Boost.Build is written on top of Boost.Jam, it
>> might make sense to treat cmake as a backend to a slim build
>> and control front end.
> I strongly disagree with this approach, because it negates any of the
> positive effects of using an off-the-shelf build system.
> We expend a lot of effort maintaining Boost.Build, much of which
> could be avoided if we bought into an existing system rather than
> rolling our own. To switch to another "back-end" and still roll our
> own... that would just be more wasted effort.
Well, c'mon. I am going to have to write scripts to quickly run
developer tests on multiple compilers, and someone will have to make
it possible for regression testers to do the same thing. Are you
saying that code shouldn't be factored out and checked into Boost?
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com Don't Miss BoostCon 2007! ==> http://www.boostcon.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk