Subject: Re: [boost] [ot] choosing a build system
From: Dave Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-05-21 12:42:05
on Tue May 15 2012, Olaf van der Spek <ml-AT-vdspek.org> wrote:
> On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 9:36 AM, Dave Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>> Except that not all variants should be build on all platforms. Linux
>>> (probably) doesn't need the static ones. And on Windows you're missing
>>> the static runtime one.
>>> Your rules don't appear to take care of variant naming either.
>> Right. Â And 90% of use-cases don't want to take care of any of those
>> things. Â That's why we wrote the rules as we did. Â Generating all the
>> possible variants of a library is a packager's job, not part of the
>> regular development workflow nor something that users regularly want.
> Right, that's my point. It'd be nice if CMake (upstream) supported
> this, then other C++ libs would benefit from it too.
Agreed. I hope that CMake (upstream) will take about half the work we
do for CMake support in ryppl. If you'd like to code up support for
this, we'd welcome your contribution.
-- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk