On 2019-05-09 8:43 a.m., Peter Dimov via Boost wrote:
Rene Rivera wrote:
Sure.. Actually you wouldn't care what build system a particular library author used. As you could use whatever build system you prefer > > to both produce and consume the libraries. ... But one way to do it is to agree on an API for building, testing, etc. Such an API would be up for design. It could be we have bash/bat/etc, or it could be a single build system, or it could be a single package manager that supports the use case.
I can't help but notice the similarity with CMake here. It also seems to have started with this goal - to provide a "portable" project description so that one could then use one's preferred build system, after cmake -G "My Preferred Build System". Didn't quite turn out that way though.
Right, but rather than provide the required meta information in a portable way, CMake is (or has become, I don't know its history) a totally invasive wrapper tool. Quite the anti-pattern, in fact. But that doesn't mean that the idea of a portable (and tool-agnostic) interface is wrong, does it ? Stefan -- ...ich hab' noch einen Koffer in Berlin...