Subject: Re: [Boost-build] [Bulk] CMake Announcement from Boost Steering Committee?
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-08-14 00:08:46
On 8/13/2017 6:11 PM, Douglas Capeci via Boost-build wrote:
> What is the fate of existing Boost Build Jam scripts and infrastructure?
> We have chosen Boost Build over CMake years ago and have made a
> considerable investment in creating our software build infrastructure
> using JAM scripts. What is to be?
Please do not top post.
There has been no official word from the Boost Steering Committee
regarding Boost Build. My educated guess is that Boost Build will remain
as a Boost tool, and as an alternative to those library developers who
want to provide jam files along with the required CMake support, when
Boost adopts CMake as their primary build tool. I would expect this to
happen precisely because of programmers like you who have an investment
in Boost Build jamfiles. But if this did happen you would have to expect
most, if not all, new libraries would only support CMake and that
current Boost libraries might well drop Boost Build support, since
maintaining two separate build methodologies is an extra burden for a
library maintainer. But until the Boost Steering Committee makes a
decision regarding this, no one can know for sure what will happen.
> Many thanks,
> Doug C.
> On Aug 13, 2017, at 11:09 AM, Francis ANDRE via Boost-build wrote:
>> Hello Boost builders
>> Someone brings me up the annoucement from the Steering Committee to
>> choose CMake as the open source build system for Boost -- reproduced
>> partly below:
>> "Therefore, we, the Steering Committee, announce to the Boost
>> community our desire and intent to move Boostâs build system to
>> CMake for users and developers alike. We are soliciting comments and
>> proposals from the community to guide the process and the goals. Our
>> desire is that the community can come to consensus by the end of the
>> calendar year with a vision of supporting users and developers."
>> I am wondering if any alternative choice as Gradle has been considered
>> instead of choosing CMake?
>> Thank for any view on this subject.
>> Francis ANDRE
>> PS: I looked for Gradle in the Boost archive on Nabble : Found 0
>> matching posts for *gradle* in Boost <http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/>
>> Unsubscribe & other changes:
> Unsubscribe & other changes: https://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-build
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