Hello, I have noticed that work is going ahead to introduce CMake, and possibly SCons build systems alongside bjam. Does this not introduce an explosion in required testing combinations, and is this already being addressed? I fully appreciate the attraction of adding CMake, but would like to ensure we do not add too many build systems due to the potentially excessive requirement on library developer to install a plethora of tools, and perform an enormous amount of testing. I wonder if a static analysis tool might be able to help determine the consistency of bjam to the other build systems. Anyhow, I haven't seen much discussion about testing, and if it's not tested it's probably broken! (At least if I've written it!) Regards, Neil Groves
Neil Groves wrote:
I have noticed that work is going ahead to introduce CMake, and possibly SCons build systems alongside bjam.
Does this not introduce an explosion in required testing combinations, and is this already being addressed?
It was my understanding that Boost would eventually discontinue using bjam for its build system and switch entirely to CMake. Is this correct, or am I merely misremembering things? - Jim
James Porter wrote:
Neil Groves wrote:
I have noticed that work is going ahead to introduce CMake, and possibly SCons build systems alongside bjam.
Does this not introduce an explosion in required testing combinations, and is this already being addressed?
It was my understanding that Boost would eventually discontinue using bjam for its build system and switch entirely to CMake. Is this correct, or am I merely misremembering things?
You are misremembering things. The outcome you mention is just what CMake folks want ;-) - Volodya
on Tue Feb 03 2009, Vladimir Prus <vladimir-AT-codesourcery.com> wrote:
James Porter wrote:
Neil Groves wrote:
I have noticed that work is going ahead to introduce CMake, and possibly SCons build systems alongside bjam.
Does this not introduce an explosion in required testing combinations, and is this already being addressed?
It was my understanding that Boost would eventually discontinue using bjam for its build system and switch entirely to CMake. Is this correct, or am I merely misremembering things?
You are misremembering things. The outcome you mention is just what CMake folks want ;-)
Also some Boost folks. ;-) But, Volodya's right: it isn't a done deal. Right now we don't have a complete testing system built around CMake, so nobody's in any position to propose CMake as a bjam replacement yet. -- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com
participants (4)
-
David Abrahams -
James Porter -
Neil Groves -
Vladimir Prus