Re: [boost] Why Boost.Build?

Subject: Re: [boost] Why Boost.Build?
From: Mathias Gaunard (mathias.gaunard_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-03-27 06:58:44

On 27/03/2011 11:10, Vladimir Prus wrote:
> Artyom wrote:
>
>>>> These questions are asked purely out of curiosity due to my  ignorance of
>>>> Boost.Jam/Boost.Build, not because I have an axe to  grind.
>>>
>>> In my opinion, I would like to see efforts to make boost build
>>> generate CMake scripts and/or visa versa.
>>>
>>
>> I hope someday BB would be replaced with CMake, but as everything
>> else it requires time and effort (=money) so BBv2 still lives.
>
> Quite a lof ot effort went into CMake experiements, including:
>
> - Writing a pile of CMake code to do what Boost.Build does now,
> similar in #lines to Boost.Build.
> - Employing folks (supposedly for real $) to work on ryppl.
> - Supposedly paying money to Kitware for some CMake improvements.
>
> And, it's still not there yet (after over 2 years).

I believe that is inaccurate.

Ryppl is not ready because it tries to do a lot of things at once, some 
of which are non-trivial.

But porting the current Boost to CMake has already been done, and works 
well to a point.

It also does much more than what Boost.Build does now.