Re: [boost] [cmake] Minimum viable cmakeification for Boost

Subject: Re: [boost] [cmake] Minimum viable cmakeification for Boost
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-06-21 17:01:08

On 6/21/2017 11:23 AM, Robert Ramey via Boost wrote:
> On 6/21/17 6:47 AM, Chris Glover via Boost wrote:
>> On Wed, 21 Jun 2017 at 04:01 Thomas Heller via Boost 
>> <boost_at_[hidden]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Interesting that you bring this up ... If you are so much in favor of a
>>> declarative build system, we already have multiple. For example plain
>>> old make or Boost.Build. With that being said, wouldn't it be more
>>> viable to improve Boost.Build with:
>>>    - Better Documentation
>>>    - More examples
> 
> Boost build has been hampered by a number of design decisions which have 
> never been revisited.
> 
> a) It is "too smart".  It tries to infer the toolset by looking around 
> the file system.  If one has more than one compiler set there is really 
> know way to know which one is going to pick.  So then one is forced to 
> go into the workings of boost build to figure out how to over ride this 
> behavior.

The solution, of course, is always to pass toolset=xxx to the b2 command 
line. In my own use of b2 I always do this.

snipped...
> 
> Robert Ramey