From: Petr Ovchenkov (ptr_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-10-11 02:25:39
>>>>> "DA" == David Abrahams <david.abrahams_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> David Abrahams wrote:
>> Well you know my point of view. Boost Users should be able to
>> build boost at their site with a minimum of hassle. If the
>> installation is not configure ; make ; make install, it should at
>> least be as simple. Including the jam-executable in the boost
>> download package helps to make local installation simple.
DA> I agree with you completely. I am only unsure of these things:
DA> 1. Whether it should be in CVS or available elsewhere (e.g. do we
DA> want to distribute HP/UX executables to Windows users?)
DA> 2. Whether now is the appropriate time to check it in. 3. Where
DA> it should go. I'm thinking tools/build/bin/<platform>...
>> Maybe we should ask Boost-Users what they prefer ?
DA> It couldn't hurt.
My sorry, may be it's prohibited topic, but why jam?
The complexity is near the same as with make. And presence in
system more than one compiler is a big problem for jam. Most people
has a good experience with maintenance makefiles.
But if this isn't issue for discussion, just ignore this mail.
DA> If you build using make, the initial build does not run yacc, so
DA> you will be using the bison output source that's currently
DA> checked in. Only the Jam bootstrap stage runs yacc. So, you might
DA> have better luck building it with Perforce Jam (without invoking
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk