As Andrey said.. You confused two different build systems. But I'm
replying solely for B2. :-)
On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 12:28 PM Robert Ramey via Boost
I understand the vision for b2 and have been using it with boost for more than 20 years. It's complex - arguably to complex.
It's actually way simpler than most build systems. Which might be a problem as it doesn't perhaps do as high level magic that users might expect.
It's still under constant development.
Yes, and that's good. But Boost only sees the bigger incremental changes from releases.
I only update and rebuild it occasionally.
Do you have a suggestion to encourage you to update to the up to date releases as they happen?
But when I do, there's almost always some sort of issue which requires going to the list or slack/boost. Eventually I get this to work and it's quite satisfactory. Basically, the development process for b2 is not resulting in a reliable product.
Do you have suggestions as to what to change in the development process?
Addressing this is a job that is difficult and underrated. I would like to see CMake efforts culminate in a result which can replace b2. But that doesn't seem to be progressing either.
Just because you don't superficially see the progress doesn't mean it's not there. I remember a certain organization making that same mistake of not thinking progress was being made. -- -- René Ferdinand Rivera Morell -- Don't Assume Anything -- No Supone Nada -- Robot Dreams - http://robot-dreams.net