on Thu May 10 2007, Douglas Gregor <doug.gregor-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
On May 10, 2007, at 7:01 AM, David Abrahams wrote:
on Wed May 09 2007, Doug Gregor <dgregor-AT-osl.iu.edu> wrote:
We expend a lot of effort maintaining Boost.Build, much of which could be avoided if we bought into an existing system rather than rolling our own. To switch to another "back-end" and still roll our own... that would just be more wasted effort.
Well, c'mon. I am going to have to write scripts to quickly run developer tests on multiple compilers, and someone will have to make it possible for regression testers to do the same thing. Are you saying that code shouldn't be factored out and checked into Boost?
Certainly not.
You're not saying that, or code shouldn't be factored out?
Boost.Build version 2 is a very interesting, object- oriented build system built on top of Jam, that looks absolutely nothing like Jam. I don't see any point in building another build system on top of CMake that looks absolutely nothing like CMake. If we pick up a standard tool, let's use it as-is and only customize when we need to.
Sure. My point is that any kind of higher-level functionality we want to add, such as "multiple builds with one command," amounts to building a front-end, however thin. I think that's all Rene was saying. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com Don't Miss BoostCon 2007! ==> http://www.boostcon.com