From: Eric Ford (eford_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-10-11 10:13:39
> > The boost documentation is long.
> Are you referring to http://www.boost.org/tools/build/, or to
> http://www.boost.org/tools/build/build_system.htm ?
The combination. First, I think anyone who bothers to write
documentation should be praised. Obviously something powerful often
needs lots of documentation. It's just that I and other end users
would much rather just type one word and not have to read anything
other than a short README that says "to compile type jam, to test type
jam test, to install type jam install"
> What in particular did you find to be complicated?
The only things I tried were to get it to build only one library and
to get it to build only one version of that library. (No need to
explain how.) Also, I tried to add a dependancy with a rule to run a
program to generate a file.
> I do need some feedback about what mechanism would be acceptable for
> the build system source. A .jamrc file has been suggested, but that
> same question: "where is the .jamrc file located?" In the absence of
> suggestions, I intend to use an environment variable setting.
Do you mean an env variable to say where to look? Can it have some
defaults (e.g current directory, home directory, /etc/,)? So most
people wouldn't need to set an env variable ? Env variables can cause
problems when you make a change since they don't synchronize across
> > or 'jam gcc'? Even 'jam
> > -sTOOLS="gcc"' seems too complicated.
> Interesting. You're suggesting that a pseudotarget with the same
name as the
> toolset should build all targets that would be built with that
> like that idea, but there are a few problems with it:
Actually, I was thinking of `which gcc`, `which kcc`, `which CC`,
etc., until it found something. I'd suggest the search be from
comercial 3rd party (e.g. KAI), to vendor provided (e.g. SGI), to
generic (eg. gcc). I presume most people want it built with their
> Aside from being condemned to years of debugging (that part seemed
> unneccessarily ad-hominem), I appreciated hearing your thoughts. I
> like to hear more from other users.
Sorry about that. I didn't mean it to be ad-hominem. For some reason
I assumed that came from some Jam developer.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk