Boost logo

Boost :

From: Douglas Gregor (doug.gregor_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-05-14 00:33:58

On May 13, 2007, at 12:00 PM, Dean Michael Berris wrote:
> I think I won't be alone
> in saying that people who have been burnt by the sheer nightmare that
> is writing a Makefile and maintaining it (even with the autotools)
> welcome the breeze that is Boost.Build and Boost.Jam . I don't know if
> it might be the name "CMake" but anything (IMO) remotely related to
> Make just turns me and a lot of developers who've dealt with it before
> away.

CMake is a cross-platform makefile/project generator. Much of what
you like about bjam and BBv2---the ability to specify platform-
independent build rules, etc.---is also available in CMake.

> It might be a naive question, but why can't we let these build-system
> specific files reside in the distribution and let users pick which one
> works for them? I'm positive we can make the CMake and Boost.Build
> stuff reside in the same distribution and not have to abandon one in
> favor of another.

Can we really maintain two separate build systems? And keep them
synchronized? That has the potential to be far worse than the status

> So personally, I'd like to still stick with Boost.Build and Boost.Jam
> -- and hope we can articulate the requirements somehow and file
> tickets for them so people can actually pick up where others left off
> and improve Boost.Build and Boost.Jam for everyone's sake. That
> however doesn't mean I would reject a well-meant effort of putting in
> the CMake build instructions/files into the distribution just as long
> as BBv2 and Boost.Jam stay.

At this point, I don't think it makes sense for anyone to have made
up their mind, given than so few people are familiar with CMake.

        - Doug

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at