Andrey Semashev wrote:

On 07.07.2010 20:44, Vladimir Prus wrote:

...

Hi,

as many here probably know, the strategic direction for Boost.Build is the use of Python as implementation language, which should bring a lot of benefits. For more detailed rationale, see:

https://trac.lvk.cs.msu.su/boost.build/wiki/PythonPort

The port has got so far as to build "hello, world" with gcc, but then stalled.

Fortunately, my employer, CodeSourcery, has a sabbatical program, and completing a Python port of Boost.Build was approved as the goal of my own sabbatical. I'll have 4 almost-full-time weeks, starting next Monday, Jule 12.

Of course, I'll be asking for feedback, so don't be surprised when I start to post design questions.

May I ask, will this work be correlated with ryppl and cmake teams? It looks like we have three directions for Boost to move on, with regard to the supplementary tools, and each team works independently from others in its own direction. It would be a pity if that work would be in vain.

It will be not, at least for now. This project is aimed at evolution of the existing and working tool. I still believe cmake has nothing to offer, and is basically a waste of time. As for ryppl, I'd be interested in matching distributed testing it is supposed to provide with boost.build, but unfortunately have trouble grasping overall design enough to say more. - Volodya