On 19/07/2017 11:43, Stefan Seefeld wrote:
So, in this spirit, I reiterate my counter-proposal: Change the Boost (build) infrastructure to allow *individual projects* to decide what tools are involved in the build process. To make this practical, this could simply mean that individual projects get to decide whether they want to move to cmake or stay with the original b2 infrastructure. Coming up with a simple integration point so boost as a whole can be built with a single command, while its components can use either cmake or b2, shouldn't be any harder than the wholesale switch that is being proposed.
Doesn't this just then push the burden onto the user of Boost libraries to have *all* of B2, cmake, autotools, scons, rake, ant, vanilla make (possibly with GNU extensions), etc etc ad infinitum? I don't see how that could ever be practical.