Re: Improving Boost Build?

Irrespective of what happens with the CMake vs BBv2 debate, it's apparent
that there is still plenty of support for bbv2: indeed, I would echo
comments that it's a pleasure to use, provided you don't need to dig in and
write new rules yourself

2) Better docs. ; Yes, I know it's been said before, but we really must get
the existing toolsets and their options documented.  This need not take too
long if someone would step up and volunteer to do it.

I&#39;ve been looking through the code and was planning on compiling a list of all the compiler flags, and a separate list of all '<whatever>' options (features, I think?). If anyone else wants to have a go too then don't let me stop you; I _may_ get sidetracked.

I get the feeling that jam, although nice and expressive for the top-level Jamfiles, lends itself to spaghettism in some cases. A bit like perl, IMHO; I'm having trouble finding any of the code 'logical'. That said, I'm not suggesting any alternatives. Hopefully documentation is all we need.

5) More BBv2 developers  &nbsp;I actually think we do tools rather well - both
quickbook and BBv2 are so very nearly where they need to be, but just need
that final push that only more developers (and a wider audience) can bring.
Part of the problem here is that Boost attracts folks interested in C++
libraries, and who don't necessarily want to spend their time hacking
Jamfiles or whatever.&nbsp; I'm not sure how solve this, unless maybe these tools
can acquire a life of their own outside of Boost as well as within it.