Subject: Re: [boost] proposal - modularize Boost build system
From: Stefan Seefeld (stefan_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-06-20 12:02:25
On 20.06.2017 04:17, John Maddock via Boost wrote:
>> I also want to be able to pick my own build (etc.) tools, not in
>> addition to Boost.Build, but instead of it. I understand that right now
>> that's not supported, which is why I'm writing this proposal. What would
>> it take for Boost to support individual libraries to be built with
>> anything else ? What requirements would that "anything" have to meet,
>> and how would it interact with the existing infrastructure to work ? Is
>> that such a strange request ?
> Absolutely anything at all?
(I'm not sure I understand what you mean. I'm specifically asking about
requirements that would restrict that "anything". So no, not absolutely
> You cannot do integration testing if every library uses something
> different. You can't even do a single build and install everything.
I think that's part of my point: At this point in time, who actually
needs the entirety of Boost built and installed as a single entity,
other than by habit ? There are so many different libraries, targeting
different audiences. Is there anybody using all of them ? Would it
really hurt anyone if they had to install Boost.MPI, Boost.Compute, and
Boost.Python (to name a few domain-specific ones) separately ?
> IMO there does have to be a common build system for that stuff
> (whatever that may be), if authors want to ship with some other build
> system as well, then that's just fine too.
-- ...ich hab' noch einen Koffer in Berlin...
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk