Subject: Re: [boost] CMake and Boost Build tests
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-07-27 02:51:30
On 7/26/2017 4:36 PM, Roger Leigh via Boost wrote:
> On 26/07/17 21:28, Edward Diener via Boost wrote:
>> On 7/26/2017 3:33 PM, Robert Ramey via Boost wrote:
>>> On 7/26/17 11:49 AM, Edward Diener via Boost wrote:
>>>> optionally, Boost Build is used to build the documentation using a
>>>> quickbook, boostbook, doxygen toolset to generate html and pdf files.
>>> Personally, I could never make this tool chain work despite a large
>>> investment of effort. I gave up on doxygen and quickbook after
>>> concluding them to be essentially non-functional. I did manage to
>>> use the xml tools loaded with boost tools along with some downloaded
>>> FOP, a version of XMLMind to create toolchain which is about 100
>>> times better and 1/100 as complex as the boost one for creating
>>> documents. So you're life will be better when you're forced to leave
>>> these behind.
>> I heartily disagree. Using quickbook and doxygen is a no-brainer for
>> me, but there is no point of debating this. Are both perfect ? No. But
>> using them makes creating documentation supremely easy.
>> I did say that there is no Boost requirement for creating
>> documentation using Boost Build. Some documentation is straight html.
>> But for those libraries that do go the quickbook and doxygen way using
>> Boost Build we need a CMake way of doing this if that is what the
>> Boost Steering Committee is mandating.
> are one way to generate doxygen docs. I'm sure something similar to
> this could be made to meet Boost's needs.
I certainly hope so since the creation of docs using the
quickbook/boostbook/doxygen toolsets via a Boost Build jam file is
pretty flexible and easy, once you understand the jam file structure for it.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk