Re: [jamboost] Aargh!

From: David Abrahams (david.abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-05-13 17:30:27

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rene Rivera" <grafik666_at_[hidden]>
To: <jamboost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 5:15 PM
Subject: Re: [jamboost] Aargh!

> On 2002-05-13 at 04:55 PM, david.abrahams_at_[hidden] (David Abrahams) wrote:
>
> >Is it one of our goals that the new Boost.Jam executable work for
building
> >1.27.0?
>
> Is was a wish, not quite a goal :-)
>
> >I had changed things so that it looks in BOOST_ROOT for boost-build.jam,
> >but of course 1.27.0 only has a boost-build.jam in
BOOST_ROOT/tools/build.
> >Now that we have separated the name "bootstrap.jam" from
"boost-build.jam",
> >it makes a lot more sense than it used to to have boost-build.jam in
> >tools/build.
> >
> >So, we need to decide what to do about this. I'm going to make the
change
> >to the Jambase in CVS of the release candidate branch. Just in case Toon
> >and Vladimir decide they can afford to rebuild everything, I don't want
to
> >slow them down. The alternative, of course, is to add instructions which
> >tell users to add a boost-build.jam at the root of older installations
> >before building. I really dislike that idea, though.
>
> I dislike it also. Seems like going backwards :-(
>
> I'll rebuild the linuxppc one. I could also produce the linuxx86, and
rpms
> if Vladimir is busy.

OK. I have checked in a changed Jambase on the RC_1_28_0 branch. I have to
go to dinner now, but afterwards I'll modify the v1 startup behavior tests
so that they correspond to the 1.27.0 configuration, and run them to make
sure everything is OK. My suggestion, if anyone wants to be proactive, is
that we all rebuild jam and hang onto it somewhere but do not post any
updated prebuilts to SF until we've all agreed it's a GO.

-Dave