From: Petr Ovchenkov (ptr_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-10-11 10:52:27
>>>>> "DA" == David Abrahams <david.abrahams_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> But when we need to build library, I prefer approach like use
>> Boris Fomichev in STLport (I hope you familiar with STLport, and
>> build it):
Wow! Excuse me. My position in this list is much lowly...
>> As for me, I had first trouble with building jam (jam's build
>> isn't clear in second pass, problem come from Jamfiles).
DA> Sorry, I didn't understand that. What did you do, and what result
DA> did you get?
That's Jam's issue. Not here.
>> May be the solution is to have two build structures, Jam- and
>> make-based? And everybody will use what he/she like?
DA> Are you volunteering? I don't think it's a good idea to have
DA> redundant build systems, but I would be happy if someone would
DA> supply a different system which satisfies all or most of the
DA> goals described at
DA> http://www.boost.org/tools/build/build_system.htm#design_criteria. I
DA> would simply retire Boost.Build if the alternative were easier to
DA> use and maintain.
You right, I can provide not all items of
(and you too). But most.
Really I can design core schema and real build for gcc (Linux,
Solaris). And, may be, build for VC6 with nmake. Also I can write
options for aCC compiler (HP's, HP-UX), but can't check now
whether it really work.
If this has some sense, I can start.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk