Subject: Re: [Boost-build] Future of Boost.Build
From: Vladimir Prus (vladimir.prus_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-07-27 08:48:18
On 26/07/2017 22:18, Chambers, Matthew via Boost-build wrote:
> Now that the shit has hit the fan, what will become of Boost.Build? I still prefer it to CMake even if Boost won't use it (whether I can convince my project to keep using it may be another matter). I have greatly appreciated Steven's, Vladimir's, and Rene's improvements over the years.
> Rene, can you expound on what you mention here?
>> * I will continue to maintain Predef. But will be forking it into a
>> non-Boost form moving forward (in similar vein to ASIO).
>> * I will *not* continue to maintain B2 in the Boost form. I will be
>> rewriting b2 into a new form to address the needs of building software that
>> matches the industry I work in. I will be doing this immediately.
> What does it mean to rewrite b2 in "a new form" that "that matches the industry I work in"?
it's probably to early to make any definite plans. However, if we decide that Boost.Build project
no longer cares about requirements of Boost C++ Libraries project, then it would be reasonable to
adjust priorities as follows:
- as opposed to having bootstrap.bat/bootstrap.sh process that tries to support zillion host compilers,
focus more on installers. Maybe only support bootstrapping with gcc and msvc.
- declare that we only care about Python version. It was original requirement of Boost C++ to not depend
on large external packages, but in 2017, an installer with Python in it can be downloaded and installed
in a minute.
- focus on designing a Python interface for defining build targets.
- drop BoostBuild documentation, rewrite docs using Markdown/GitBook or maybe even using GitHub wiki.
That's just my personal list.
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