[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       boost-build
Subject:    Re: [Boost-build] [Bulk] CMake Announcement from Boost Steering Committee?
From:       Edward Diener via Boost-build <boost-build () lists ! boost ! org>
Date:       2017-08-14 4:06:29
Message-ID: omr7jt$a17$1 () blaine ! gmane ! org
[Download RAW message or body]

On 8/13/2017 8:55 PM, Douglas Capeci via Boost-build wrote:
> A sigh of relief in knowing that Boost Build will continue as a supported Boost \
> tool offering.

I never said that. It is just my guess.

> 
> But why is CMake or another tool being considered to replace the current Boost \
> Library build system? Jam is simple, elegant, easy to learn, and works very nicely \
> for C++ tool enviroments and in MHO is better than CMake and any of its \
> competitors. If it isn't broken why fix it? 
> 
> On Aug 13, 2017, at 8:08 PM, Edward Diener via Boost-build wrote:
> 
> > On 8/13/2017 6:11 PM, Douglas Capeci via Boost-build wrote:
> > > What is the fate of existing Boost Build Jam scripts and infrastructure? We \
> > > have chosen Boost Build over CMake years ago and have made a considerable \
> > > investment in creating our software build infrastructure using JAM scripts. \
> > > What is to be?
> > 
> > Please do not top post.
> > 
> > There has been no official word from the Boost Steering Committee regarding Boost \
> > Build. My educated guess is that Boost Build will remain as a Boost tool, and as \
> > an alternative to those library developers who want to provide jam files along \
> > with the required CMake support, when Boost adopts CMake as their primary build \
> > tool. I would expect this to happen precisely because of programmers like you who \
> > have an investment in Boost Build jamfiles. But if this did happen you would have \
> > to expect most, if not all, new libraries would only support CMake and that \
> > current Boost libraries might well drop Boost Build support, since maintaining \
> > two separate build methodologies is an extra burden for a library maintainer. But \
> > until the Boost Steering Committee makes a decision regarding this, no one can \
> > know for sure what will happen. 
> > > Many thanks,
> > > Doug C.
> > > On Aug 13, 2017, at 11:09 AM, Francis ANDRE via Boost-build wrote:
> > > > Hello Boost builders
> > > > 
> > > > Someone brings me up the annoucement from the Steering Committee to choose \
> > > > CMake as the open source build system for Boost -- reproduced partly below: 
> > > > "Therefore, we, the Steering Committee, announce to the Boost community our \
> > > > desire and intent to move Boost's build system to CMake for users and \
> > > > developers alike. We are soliciting comments and proposals from the community \
> > > > to guide the process and the goals. Our desire is that the community can come \
> > > > to consensus by the end of the calendar year with a vision of supporting \
> > > > users and developers." 
> > > > I am wondering if any alternative choice as Gradle has been considered \
> > > > instead of choosing CMake? 
> > > > Thank for any view on this subject.
> > > > 
> > > > Francis ANDRE
> > > > 
> > > > PS: I looked for Gradle in the Boost archive on Nabble : Found 0 matching \
> > > > posts for *gradle* in Boost <http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/>

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: https://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-build


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]