Re: [boost] proposal - modularize Boost build system

Subject: Re: [boost] proposal - modularize Boost build system
From: Gary Furnish (gfurnish_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-06-19 20:22:32

I'd be happy with boost easily supporting some way of cross compiling
that does not involve undocumented features and writing a bunch of
custom jam files that show up in random locations.  I'd be ecstatic if
there was a way to integrate it with an existing cmake build system.
Heck, I'd be happy with a clearly defined procedure so that I could
write a build file for some libraries.  Some libraries build pretty
easily (python), some are so difficult and pull in so many
dependencies that it is faster to rewrite the code then figure out how
to install it independently  (Log).  I don't see as a user why this is
such a hard ask.  If a tool like cmake can't be easily supported for
individual libs then the build system is quite frankly unmaintainable.
Is cmake such an exotic today that supporting it as an option is
prohibitive?

On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 1:48 PM, Peter Dimov via Boost
<boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Stefan Seefeld wrote:
>
>> What would it take for Boost to support individual libraries to be built
>> with anything else ?
>
>
> In what scenario? Standalone, or as part of the Boost release?
>
> If standalone, it's up to you to support whatever you like.
>
> If as part of the release, this would mean that everyone who wants to build
> a Boost release would now need to have your preferred build system
> installed. Currently, we don't require anything else, as Boost.Build is part
> of the release. So this would be a significant regression in usability.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost