From: Douglas Gregor (doug.gregor_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-05-10 09:16:49
On May 10, 2007, at 7:01 AM, David Abrahams wrote:
> on Wed May 09 2007, Doug Gregor <dgregor-AT-osl.iu.edu> wrote:
>> 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?
Certainly not. Boost.Build version 2 is a very interesting, object-
oriented build system built on top of Jam, that looks absolutely
nothing like Jam. I don't see any point in building another build
system on top of CMake that looks absolutely nothing like CMake. If
we pick up a standard tool, let's use it as-is and only customize
when we need to.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk