Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] Boost.Build: new tutorial
From: Alain Miniussi (alain.miniussi_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-11-12 05:07:53

On 12/11/2014 07:17, Vladimir Prus wrote:
> On 11/12/2014 01:58 AM, Richard wrote:
>> [Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]
>> "Steve M. Robbins" <steve_at_[hidden]> spake the secret code
>> <2922516.Yh02HbQAIQ_at_riemann> thusly:
>>> Well, personally, I prefer not to have to learn a new build system
>>> if I don't
>>> have to. So my first stance would be: what's wrong with cmake, for
>>> example?
>> Ditto. Progress is being made on creating a package manager for use
>> with CMake <>; cmake has a community
>> that can actually answer questions. Bjam is orphaned AFAICT.
> I think you've expressed this opinion earlier, repeating it does not
> make it stronger,
Is there a link to a synthetic answer to that opinion/point of
view/analysis. Basically, a technical justification of the usage of bjam
for boost, which always seemed kind of odd to me).
I'm just looking for a link, which is why I don't start a new thread (I
could not come with a troll safe title).



> and the email that started this topic is about Boost.Build tutorial -
> let's stick
> to it.
> - Volodya


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at