Re: [boost] Why Boost.Build?

Subject: Re: [boost] Why Boost.Build?
From: Vladimir Prus (vladimir_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-03-27 07:15:43

Mathias Gaunard wrote:

> 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 surely depends on what "point" is. There's more to it than making
"cmake + make" exit with non-zero status.

- Volodya

-- 
Vladimir Prus
Mentor Graphics
[phone]