Boost logo

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.

> Robert Ramey

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