Subject: Re: [boost] [cmake] Minimum viable cmakeification for Boost
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-06-21 18:47:21
On 6/21/17 10:01 AM, Edward Diener via Boost wrote:
>> 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.
Right and so do I.
I also pass the other switches. This re-enforces my point that bjam
could my made much better and easier to use with huge changes by
altering it's user interface philosophy. If I were required to pass all
the switches either on the command line or in the local jamfile itself,
then I would only get helpful error messages rather than inexplicable
behavior. I believe that evolving the bjam user interface to his
phisophy wouldn't be a huge project.
>> Robert Ramey
> Unsubscribe & other changes: