Re: [Boost-build] Status of boost-build at sourceforge?

Subject: Re: [Boost-build] Status of boost-build at sourceforge?
From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-04-14 11:19:52

Steve,

could you comment on the below?

Thanks,
Volodya

On Sunday, March 27, 2011 13:25:35 Vladimir Prus wrote:
> On Sunday, March 20, 2011 15:21:18 Steve M. Robbins wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 12:32:58PM +0300, Vladimir Prus wrote:
> > > On Sunday, March 20, 2011 01:22:49 Steve M. Robbins wrote:
> > > > What version should be assigned to Boost.Build?
> > > 
> > > Hi Steve,
> > > 
> > > that's a good question. I am actually planning to change the version
> > > scheme used for Boost.Build, to be Yeah.Month, and release official
> > > Boost.Build 2011.03 soonish. Would such versioning scheme be fine for
> > > Debian?
> > 
> > Yes, that works, because 2011 will be the "major" version, which is
> > larger than the existing boost-build's "2".
> > 
> > > Also, as Daniel said, Boost.Jam is now almost considered an integral
> > > part of Boost.Build (and soon will become fully so, by having the same
> > > version number). Do you think that will cause any problems for you?
> > 
> > I don't forsee a problem with that.
> > 
> > 
> > Actually, after sending the email yesterday, I chose a different
> > solution to my versioning problem.  I simply removed the separate
> > boost-build package and put both bjam and Boost.Build into the Boost
> > "development" package (libboost1.46-dev).
> > 
> > This has the side-effect that anyone who simply wants to use
> > Boost.Build also has to install all the Boost headers.  Do you
> > think there are many such people?
> 
> I think it is unfortunate coupling. We want Boost.Build to be usable
> without Boost in general, or huge pile of headers in particular.
> Do you think it would be possible to have boost-build package, that
> includes both the .jam files, and the executable (now named bjam,
> soon to be officially renamed)?
> 
> > When you say "official Boost.Build 2011.03", above, do you mean to say
> > that Boost.Build will start having releases independently of Boost?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> > Will Boost.Build also continue to be bundled with Boost?
> 
> Yes. Ideally, Boost will be bundled with specific Boost.Build release
> that is known to work with that Boost version.
> 
> - Volodya

-- 
Vladimir Prus
http://vladimir_prus.blogspot.com
Boost.Build: http://boost.org/boost-build2