Hi all, I just read (a bit of) the discussion on cmake - to me it's ominous boost is even considering this. For me there were 2 reasons to start using boost in 2001, the libs *and* the build system. NO more vc projects file, make files, generated makefiles etc. But an elegant tool with a simple syntax building all my plaforms. (And please know, at some point we wrote our own makefile generator, but I can admit, bjam is just a better tool). After that I started using bjam (bbv2) as my main buildtool and been happy with it ever since: * I used it for over 4 years in all my work/commercial/consulting and private projects * 'it just works' * it forces you to structure your code well, think 'mountpoint = project' * target definition is simple and elegant * it nicely intergrates in a buildsystem like cerberus (http://cerberus.rubyforge.org), on all platforms I use(d) (sun,hp,aix,as400,osx,windows,linux ... Some thing that worry me in the discussion: 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. This is marketing speak! (And has nothing to do with how things work in reality). And secondly, I believe tools like VC are not in the best interest of developers, so remarks like CMake is about integrating well with the way the user develops code. That might be makefiles, VC++ projects, XCode projects, whatever. Having used CMake, bjam, and autotools, I've found CMake to be by far the easiest system for *users* to get up and running with. may sound reasonable, they are in fact a corruption - I apologize if this sounds offending, but I have never seen anything good coming from have to wade through a sea of projectfiles,makefiles,makefile-alike-syntax,the code itself *and* a directory structure below it all: too many universes to juggle around. It's complex enough even if you have a 1-on-1 mapping between buildsystem, code and directory layout; so in my view there's nothing wrong with imposing structure on users, they might even benefit from it (I know Id did ...). To me it's feel backwards to try and get some 'old school' stuff like cmake into boost. Sure, bjam documentation isnt' all great and if there's only one guy doing the work, maybe that's the key to a solution then: write some docs, and get Mr Prus some help ... And I may offend people here, but everyone I ever heard or saw complaining about bjam's difficulty (on windows or ...), well, they're just lazy. It's not that hard to build and I think some of the remarks by Mr Caisse, Mr Rivera, Mr Rozental and others demonstrate this. Well, there you have it - Regards, Dirk