Boost logo

Boost-Build :

Subject: Re: [Boost-build] Python port development
From: Artyom (artyomtnk_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-07-09 09:47:45

> > And for all those reasons the CMake build system was implemented for the
> > boost project. It is done, works and is proven.
> ... and unmaintained? And because it's unmaintained, it's not even possible
> to prove that cmake gets the same test results on all targets. Yeah, proven
> Also, most of the concerns about the language listed above equally applies
> to CMake -- it has crazy language that has no use whatsoever outside cmake.

Few notes: not that I think CMake is best system ever. In fact it has many
But what build system does not have them?

I still do not support BBv2 for Boost.Locale even in the release for review for
one simple
reason - there is no even way to do something like find_library, or find_path.

Maybe BBv2 somehow suits needs of Boost library as it trys to be self-containing
but it
does not suits needs of libraries that do use 3rd part tools, and this is going
to increase
as more libraries are developed and put in Boost.

So yes, you can develop a "perfect" build system that would not have crappy
like CMake has, be fast, efficient and make a coffee for you,
but it will take years of hard work to make it as stable and useful as CMake or
autotools are


Meanwhile, I can't ship my Boost.Locale with jam-files because BBv2 just does
do the job, build system is expected to do.

So, what is better? Switch to some working build system and drop BBv2 or try to
rewrite it

and still get stuck with basic problems it has?

To be honest, I really doubt if this is the way to go. Boost works too hard on
reinventing the
wheel and living in its own world that sometime has no connection to real world
developers needs.

My $0.02

Best Regards,

  Boost.Locale developers that BBv2 does not suit it basic needs.


Boost-Build list run by bdawes at, david.abrahams at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at