Do I understand correctly, that I would have to change the build script (since it's a cpp file, is build source file more fitting?) to build a new configuration?
Yes. Do you think it is wrong? Why? How do you envision it? HMake appears to require CMake to be
built. In addition, if hmake is to become a part of Boost release archive, it would have to be licensed under BSL.
Unless HMake gets very popular, this will remain a dependency for the time being. I would license it under BSL. No problem. On Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 9:14 PM Дмитрий Архипов via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
чт, 21 мар. 2024 г. в 20:54, Hassan Sajjad via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org>:
I developed the build-system HMake https://github.com/HassanSajjad-302/HMake.
Looking at example 2 I see
void buildSpecification() { Configuration &debug = GetConfiguration("Debug"); debug.ASSIGN(ConfigType::DEBUG); Configuration &release = GetConfiguration("Release"); release.ASSIGN(LTO::ON);
configurationSpecification(debug); configurationSpecification(release); }
and then
Building this example will create two directories Debug and Release, based on the GetConfiguraion line in buildSpecification.
Do I understand correctly, that I would have to change the build script (since it's a cpp file, is build source file more fitting?) to build a new configuration?
It is in C++ and MIT Licenced.
Our main build system is currently delivered together with Boost sources and it bootstraps itself. Meaning, Boost doesn't need anything beyond a compiler to be built. HMake appears to require CMake to be built. In addition, if hmake is to become a part of Boost release archive, it would have to be licensed under BSL.
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost