Re: [Boost-users] What's happened to Ryppl?

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] What's happened to Ryppl?
From: Dave Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-01-25 12:54:13

[Redirecting replies to the boost developers' list; we should have
been there nearly from the beginning.  Anyone who wants to see the
earlier parts of the thread should look to
http://groups.google.com/group/boostusers/browse_thread/thread/6d0d01eb3cac4abf]

Hi Robert,

Could you please use standard quoting?  I am having trouble separating
the parts you wrote below from what Eric wrote.

Thanks,
Dave

At Tue, 25 Jan 2011 09:06:19 -0800,
Robert Ramey wrote:
> 
> Eric Niebler wrote:
> 
> A lot of work remains --- that is, if it's also our intention to
> modularize boost and have a functioning cmake build system, too.
> 
> At least, modularization seems like it would be a good thing to do at the
> same time. And nobody is working on a bjam system for modularized boost.
> 
> *** I don't believe there is any reason to couple modularization of boost to 
> any particular build system.
> I use bjam to build and test the serialization library on my local machine. 
> I just set the current directory to libs/serialization/test and run bjam 
> with some switches.  This builds/updates the prerequisites to the 
> serialization library, builds the serialization library, then builds and 
> runs the tests.  (and in my case builds a table of test results since i use 
> library status.sh).  I'm would expect that I could the same with CTest.
> 
> The key issue is that the build system permit the building of just one 
> "module" (and its necessary prerequisites). Bjam (and hopefully ctest) does 
> this now.  Building of "all" of boost is just the building of each module. 
> Building of some alternative "distribution" is just the building of each of 
> the component modules (and their prequisites). There isn't even any reason 
> why each module has to use the same build system.
> 
> <idle speculation>
> Is it feasible to have both git and svn development going on
> simultaneously? Two-way synchronization from non-modularized svn boost
> to modularized git boost? Is that pure insanity?
> </idle speculation>
> 
> *** By the same token, a "modularized" boost needn't require that all 
> modules use the same source control system.  Ideally, the build for each 
> module would use checkout/update the local copy of the module according to 
> the "configuration file" (...v2 or ctest.?).
> 
> Once the procedure for for building a module is moved to the module rather 
> than invoked "from the top", modularization can proceed incrementally.
> 
> Robert Ramey
> 
> -- 
> 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Boost-users mailing list
> > Boost-users_at_[hidden]
> > http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Boost-users mailing list
> Boost-users_at_[hidden]
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users

-- 
Dave Abrahams
BoostPro Computing
http://www.boostpro.com