From: David Abrahams (david.abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-10-11 12:04:04
Also, FYI, the use of Jam was supposed to solve many of the make problems
http://www.pcug.org.au/~millerp/rmch/recu-make-cons-harm.html, for which I
don't know of any simple solution. Indeed, the paper seems to imply that
there is no effective way to use make unless ALL build components are
included in a single Makefile. Jam allows relatively non-intrusive addition
of subprojects to any project.
David Abrahams, C++ library designer for hire
C++ Booster (http://www.boost.org)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Garland" <jeff_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2001 12:19 PM
Subject: RE: [boost] Boost.Build on IBM, SGI & HP
> > > 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.
> If you are really considering a make-based approach, I might suggest that
> is probably some group of users that would accept gnu make instead of
> Windows (If not, I'm sure they will speak up now). I understand that this
> violates some of the criteria set by Dave. However, gmake is easily
> for windows and a the core of make rules that can be shared will be much
> if the same make engine is utilized (I haven't looked at Jam yet, but I
> this is a key advantage of this approach). This doesn't necessarily
> MAC folks....
> Info: http://www.boost.org Unsubscribe:
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk