Re: [jamming] RFC: On the future of Jam, "FT Jam" and Boost

From: David Abrahams (david.abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-06-29 14:45:33

----- Original Message -----
From: "David Turner" <david.turner_at_[hidden]>

> Humm.. there seems to be some misunderstanding. The reason for
> embedding control files within the executable is to simplify
> distribution by including the _defaults_ in a single file. This
> doesn't mean that using other scripts should be restricted.
>
> I have myself made quite some hacking with the Jambase in order
> to support a few more toolsets, and I value the "-f" flag in
> Jam very dearly :-)

I think people would like some simple way to configure the executable to use
a different "base" file without the need for "-f".

I suppose it's easy enough to fake that with the appropriate shell script,
but it might make sense to give people a compiled-in mechanism, like the use
of a .jamrc file.

> I'll try to give more info on this next week (it's week-end
> time here in France :o)
>
> Cheers,
>
> - David Turner
>
> PS: And I agree that a different name is required for the
>     build system. I feel that "Boost.Build" is likely to
>     be abreviated by most users as simply 'boost' so I'd
>     rather favor a drastic name change.
>
>     "Marmalade" has been suggested, it seems nice :-)

It's cute (et surtout, très Français), but I have these concerns:

1. It's a long name to type. Anything longer than "make" will deter adoption
;-)
2. I think I'd like to keep the boost identity attached to the architecture
somehow.

-Dave