From: Toon Knapen (toon.knapen_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-05-11 16:58:58
Gennadiy Rozental wrote:
> IMO We should deal with this as we do with any other submission. Someone
> needs to bring it up and we should review it and make a decision.
This is not like any other library because it impacts _all_ libraries
and _all_ testers etc.
And although the discussion on Cmake on this list is generally
interesting, we should avoid making the same mistake as a few years ago.
Last time when we were looking for a build-system (and finally decided
on Jam), (I believe David Abrahams) had suggested a python-based
build-system. This was unacceptable to many because it would mean boost
had a dependency on python. Nevertheless of all those who objected,
little had to work on/with the build system later on while the
python-approach-supporters later on were stuck with much more work
because of the criticism on the-python-approach.
If we discuss features that we think are lacking in Cmake, we should
also look at which build-system _does_ offer those features, which
build-system would be a serious alternative.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk