On Apr 20, 2006, at 5:38 PM, Walter Landry wrote:
David Abrahams <dave@boost-consulting.com> wrote:
as to what you expect to happen. As you know, boost has a significant investment and momentum in designing and developing Boost.Build, we have an extensive test suite, and we even have fairly complete (if imperfect) documentation. Surely you recognize that it's unlikely anyone is going to look at a system whose "docs are a bit sketchy, and it still needs work for mere mortals to be able to use," determine that it really holds greater potential than everything we've developed and currently have planned, convince the other invested parties to change direction, etc?
I am not suggesting getting rid of Boost.Build entirely. BuildSystem would be used for configuration, and Boost.Build could still be used for building. I use BuildSystem with SCons. Petsc uses it with make.
If you're interested, I could send you a Jamfile we use for building Petsc/2.2.0a. -- Noel Belcourt