On 05/05/2025 23:45, Hassan Sajjad via Boost wrote:
Generally speaking your "benefits list" has quite bold statements
Are you proposing replacement of b2 for Boost or just yet another build system to the club?
These statements are based on concrete evidence. I am proposing to replace b2.
If I remember well, this is not the first time that you want to propose it, and I was against it for different reasons: - We are already trying to replace the build system with cmake. - CMake can have pros and cons, but actually it's one of biggest standard in C++ development. Changing a "boost only" build system for another system that will used only for boost (I don't see hmake widely used) it's pretty useless. - Che build speed-up can be good, but build boost it's not something that a normal user does every day, so in my personal opinion it's not a good reason to change the build system. - And I say "change" and not "add" because using three different build systems, b2, cmake and boost.build, it's a mess. The build system should be only one, apart the periods of time where we need to migrate from one system to another one. - Many people install and use boost with package managers like vcpkg and conan. HMake is not integrating well with those systems. The alternatives is that we need to do a lot of work in order to make it work with at least those package manager, or use other build systems for those and HMake for building boost without them. It's the previous point, we need to maintain a lot of different systems. All of those reasons remains valid now in my opinion. Regards Daniele