On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 6:54 PM, Nathan Ridge <zeratul976@hotmail.com> wrote:
Hello,
I am developing a new C++ library (unrelated to Boost) and I need to choose a build system for it.
I had originally planned to use Boost.Build, because I figured that it would be particularly suitable for a C++ library, and because I've come to associate Boost with high quality and excellence.
However, recently I've heard talk of Boost switching its own build system from Boost.Build to CMake (in fact, the currently active thread about modularization suggests that this change is imminent). My understanding is that Boost is the primary user of Boost.Build, and therefore I am concerned about what this switch means for the future of Boost.Build.
Do you think choosing Boost.Build as the build system for a project is still a sound choice, or am I better off choosing something else like CMake?
More generally, what build system would you recommend for a C++ library?
My requirements for the build system are the following: - straightforward support for multiple variants of the build (32-bit vs. 64-bit, debug vs. release, static vs. shared, etc.), including coexistence of multiple variants on the same machine - general ease of use (for the library writer and library users) - suitability for a C++ project - cross-platform, FOSS
Any thoughts are appreciated.
Maybe you can have a look at premake (http://industriousone.com/premake). Its works in a similar way to CMake, that is, it generates project files/makefiles for target platforms, but the nice thing is that it uses Lua as a language. -- François