Re: [Boost-build] Future development

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-10-06 17:10:07

on Sat Oct 06 2007, Rene Rivera <grafikrobot-AT-gmail.com> wrote:

> David Abrahams wrote:
>> on Fri Oct 05 2007, Rene Rivera <grafikrobot-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
>>> David Abrahams wrote:
>>>> on Thu Oct 04 2007, Ray Lambert <codemonkey-AT-interthingy.net> wrote:
>
>>> You are including bjam in the "all makes I know" statement, right?
>> 
>> No, bjam isn't really a make anymore in that sense.  "Nobody" uses
>> bjam that way -- instead they use our large pile of libraries known as
>> Boost.Build.
>
> I fixed a bug less then three weeks ago reported by someone who is one 
> of those users. And there have been some posts on this list from others 
> like that.

That's why I quoted "nobody."  My point is that the community of users
who directly depend only on bjam and not Boost.Build is incredibly
small by comparison to the community of users that depend on make and
not Cmake.

>> Perforce Jam and its Jambase are low-level enough that I
>> would allow them as "a make,"
>
> I would consider only bjam as providing the same functionality as make. 
> After all I use it in such a manner for building bjam itself (I'm 
> referring to the jam/src/build.jam file).

Yeah, sure, but it also has a lot of other stuff built in that goes
beyond the basic requirements of a make.  But sure, it's about the
same complexity as gmake.

I don't really see what difference it makes.  If I include bjam in
"all makes I know," then I might have to say "all makes I know other
than bjam."

>> except that make is almost always the main command-line build tool
>> for a platform, and Jam has never reached that level of adoption on
>> any platform
>
> Hm, perhaps you missed the part where Apple has used Jam in MacOS-X
> dev tools for a long time now.

OK, fine, but we're not using that codebase; bjam forked from Jam long
ago, and pressure on Apple's Jam makes little or no difference to bjam.

>> Would you at least be willing to try building Boost using the Cmake
>> tree Doug set up in SVN and look at the CMakeLists.txt files?  Your
>> feedback would be very valuable, especially because you know BB well
>> and because you are skeptical about using Cmake.
>
> Sure, I can try, when I get a chance. Hence it might be a while.

Thanks

>> Sort of... also a major redesign of the BB system AFAICT.
>
> Not really a redesign... Since it would be the equivalent of saving and 
> restoring the state right before the build stage. 

Yeah, sounds major to me, but what do I know?

> It's not really practical now since it would amount to saving the
> bloated string tables state though.
>

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
http://www.boost-consulting.com