Subject: Re: [Boost-build] Boost.BuildV2 Python migration, SCons?
From: Vladimir Prus (vladimir_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-09-05 09:21:25
Stefan Seefeld wrote:
> On 08/29/2009 09:06 AM, Vladimir Prus wrote:
>> On Saturday 29 August 2009 Bruce Simpson wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>> Interesting that Python has been proposed as an alternative to the
>>> internal bjam language:
>>> I found the Boost.BuildV2/bjam native language difficult to fathom. Some
>>> time ago I successfully implemented it, experimentally, as a build
>>> system for XORP, however, we have since moved to using SCons, which is
>>> working well for us at the moment. Some of the constructs in there, I
>>> borrowed from our bjam experiment.
>>> I wonder if there has been any thought or discussion about possibly
>>> moving to SCons (which uses Python), for building Boost itself?
>> It's hard to give an accurate and useful answer to this question. "There were"
>> is accurate, but probably not what you wanted to know. I think there's even
>> a branch where scons is used to build Boost, but I don't know the state
>> of it.
>> I am personally not convinced that SCons has the same high-level features
>> Boost.Build has. As for using SCons as build engine -- this is possible,
>> in future, although there were some concerns about its performance.
> what is the state of the Python port of boost.build ?
As I have previously reported:
it's now on trunk. Back then, only 'hello, world' could be built.
As of today, the 'example/libraries' also builds fine. The next
big step if to fully port gcc.py
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