Re: [boost] [ot] choosing a build system

Subject: Re: [boost] [ot] choosing a build system
From: Francois Duranleau (xiao.bai.xiong_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-05-09 08:48:24

On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 6:54 PM, Nathan Ridge <zeratul976_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I am developing a new C++ library (unrelated to Boost) and I need
> to choose a build system for it.
>
> I had originally planned to use Boost.Build, because I figured that
> it would be particularly suitable for a C++ library, and because
> I've come to associate Boost with high quality and excellence.
>
> However, recently I've heard talk of Boost switching its own build
> system from Boost.Build to CMake (in fact, the currently active
> thread about modularization suggests that this change is imminent).
> My understanding is that Boost is the primary user of Boost.Build,
> and therefore I am concerned about what this switch means for the
> future of Boost.Build.
>
> Do you think choosing Boost.Build as the build system for a project
> is still a sound choice, or am I better off choosing something else
> like CMake?
>
> More generally, what build system would you recommend for a C++
> library?
>
> My requirements for the build system are the following:
> Â  - straightforward support for multiple variants of the build
> Â Â Â  (32-bit vs. 64-bit, debug vs. release, static vs. shared, etc.),
> Â Â Â  including coexistence of multiple variants on the same machine
> Â  - general ease of use (for the library writer and library users)
> Â  - suitability for a C++ project
> Â  - cross-platform, FOSS
>
> Any thoughts are appreciated.

Maybe you can have a look at premake
(http://industriousone.com/premake). Its works in a similar way to
CMake, that is, it generates project files/makefiles for target
platforms, but the nice thing is that it uses Lua as a language.

-- 
François