From: Rene Rivera (grafikrobot_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-08-08 16:29:19
Maik Beckmann wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, 8. August 2007 21:26:28 schrieb Rene Rivera:
>> That doesn't
>> remove the need for us to test that Boost builds and works correctly in
>> all those other build systems. And when it doesn't work users are not
>> likely going to bother Kitware, they will complain to us.
> Well, this is valid for all software boost uses and doesn't maintain. This is
> OK if it work well, IMHO.
Yes, in particular we know we test considerably less platform plus build
combinations than users actually deal with. And this is problem I've
mentioned before. We should consider not only the immediate features of
the make system, but also how it impacts the overall development
procedures. And I'm afraid there is a tendency to ignore how we deal
with the libraries after we release them. I personally think that *any*
meta-build system is detrimental to productivity. But it's not my
decision, I just want to make sure others consider the consequences of
doing such a switch to their daily lives in developing and maintaining
> However, its a good point!
> Unfortunately Doug is in charge with Trac and Subversion, so I suggest to wait
> with further discussions on pros and cons about CMake until these issues are
> stabilized and he has time to participate.
Why? It's not a Cmake question, it's a problem with any meta-build
system. I certainly hope others can see the general issues when consider
a build system which directly runs the tools vs. a build system that
generates files for other build systems.
-- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com -- 102708583/icq - grafikrobot/aim - grafikrobot/yahoo
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk