From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-05-10 09:38:08
on Thu May 10 2007, Douglas Gregor <doug.gregor-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
You're not saying that, or code shouldn't be factored out?
> 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.
Sure. My point is that any kind of higher-level functionality we want
to add, such as "multiple builds with one command," amounts to
building a front-end, however thin. I think that's all Rene was
-- 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