Re: [boost] Just another GSoC project idea: Create a Bjam clone based on the Boost libraries

Subject: Re: [boost] Just another GSoC project idea: Create a Bjam clone based on the Boost libraries
From: Klaim - Joël Lamotte (mjklaim_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-02-16 10:41:43

On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 4:31 PM, Edward Diener <eldiener_at_[hidden]>wrote:

> I have found understanding bjam and Boost Build largely impenetrable based
> on its documentation. I am not criticizing its functionality or how well it
> works for the vast majority of normal cases. It is when one needs to do
> something outside of the norm that I have found it very difficult, ie.
> actually writing bjam files with an undestanding of how they fit in with
> the Boost Build system.
>
> I know nothing about CMake. If it could provide the functionality that
> bjam/Boost Build provides in an understandable and flexible way so that it
> would be easier for non-experts to manipulate the build of libraries, test
> cases, documentation, I would love it as at least an alternative to current
> Boost Build.
>
> Without knowing anything about CMake my one worry about it is that it is a
> generalized build system and I do not know if it could be made as flexible
> as Boost Build in being tailored toward Boost developers.
>
> This is just purely my personal opinion and I have no idea how the
> majority of Boost library developers or users feel about it, much less the
> acknowledged leaders in the Boost community of developers.
>

A quick informative note to complete that: I'm not a CMake advocate or
against boost being converted to it, but one important change to note with
CMake compared to b2 is that bootstrapping from just boost
source code clone would not be possible as it is now (except if you add
cmake code into boost source repo). I don't see this as a problem because
almost all my C++ projects already use CMake, but maybe that's one of the
arguments used
Against putting more efforts in a CMake conversion (because some people see
CMake as an additional dependency instead of a meta-buildsystem).

I'll just add a quick thanks to Stephen Kelly who added a lot of
interesting features to recent and future CMake versions which will make my
life less miserable when setting up complex projects.