From: Darren Garvey (lists.drrngrvy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-05-15 14:45:35
On 15/05/07, John Maddock <john_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Irrespective of what happens with the CMake vs BBv2 debate, it's apparent
> that there is still plenty of support for bbv2: indeed, I would echo
> comments that it's a pleasure to use, provided you don't need to dig in
> write new rules yourself :-)
It definitely seems that way. Heh.
2) Better docs. Yes, I know it's been said before, but we really must get
> the existing toolsets and their options documented. This need not take
> long if someone would step up and volunteer to do it.
I've been looking through the code and was planning on compiling a list of
all the compiler flags, and a separate list of all '<whatever>' options
(features, I think?). If anyone else wants to have a go too then don't let
me stop you; I _may_ get sidetracked. :)
I get the feeling that jam, although nice and expressive for the top-level
Jamfiles, lends itself to spaghettism in some cases. A bit like perl, IMHO;
I'm having trouble finding any of the code 'logical'. That said, I'm not
suggesting any alternatives. Hopefully documentation is all we need.
5) More BBv2 developers :-) I actually think we do tools rather well - both
> quickbook and BBv2 are so very nearly where they need to be, but just need
> that final push that only more developers (and a wider audience) can
> Part of the problem here is that Boost attracts folks interested in C++
> libraries, and who don't necessarily want to spend their time hacking
> Jamfiles or whatever. I'm not sure how solve this, unless maybe these
> can acquire a life of their own outside of Boost as well as within it.
There was talk on the Boost wiki about a python rewrite. Has that stalled?
If so, are there any public code fragments of it about, anyone?
Boost-Build list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk