Subject: Re: [Boost-build] [doc] b2 headers
From: Mateusz Loskot (mateusz_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-04-09 19:13:16
On 9 April 2018 at 19:40, Robert Ramey via Boost-build
> On 4/9/18 10:27 AM, Steven Watanabe via Boost-build wrote:
> OK - you're going to argue that I'm not a typical end user. I don't kno
> about that. But this is a great way of working. We should encourage users
> to connect to github directly. The idea of downloading a huge monolithic
> boost distribution on from time to so last century.
That's why I've been prototyping CMake configuration for Boost.GIL that
should allow contributors to use reasonably new Boost installed system-wide
from binary distribution, then `git pull boostorg/gil` only and
be able to develop.
>>> But, as long-time Boost.Build users, I dare to judge this is an
>>> excellent example of why peole hate this awesome build system :)
> I think the build system lacks clarity regarding whom it is trying to serve,
> what it's proper scope is and what it is supposed to do.
Might be. TBH, I'm not able to clarify myself what bit of the docs
belongs to where.
However, using CMake-based knowledge,
for general CMake options I go to cmake.org/docs;
for a project specific build options, I refer to project.org/docs.
But, I know that the former start with CMAKE_ prefix and that small
detail is extremely important to get my bearings right.
I see no conventions or patterns, no no-brainers to learn.
Why not allow intrinsic b2 properties as options
b2 --toolset=gcc --variant=debug
while all project/configuration-specific can only be given as
b2 --property foo=bar
b2 -p foo=bar
or something like that.
-- Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net
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