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)
> - 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
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk