David Abrahams <dave@boost-consulting.com> wrote:
I'm always very curious when you make this reference (you've mentioned this before, right? Sounds familiar)
This is the first time I mentioned this system. In the past I just wanted a configuration system of any kind. There is sort of one already [1], but now there seems to be talk of implementing something more ambitious. You can spend an eternity working on this problem. I would prefer if Boost got out of the business of build systems, and instead focused on just writing great libraries.
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. Cheers, Walter Landry wlandry@ucsd.edu [1] For example, I can not figure out how to get it to use g++-4.1 instead of the default g++ (which is 4.0). This is really unacceptable. It shouldn't take me more than 30 seconds to figure that out.