Re: [boost] Re: Boost.Build on IBM, SGI & HP

From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-10-22 09:56:30

At 08:45 PM 10/12/01 +0300, Peter Dimov wrote:

 >From: <williamkempf_at_[hidden]>
 >> Well, from a Windows perspective, the Jam solution is lightyears
 >> better then make + autoconf, since we don't have autoconf and though
 >> we do have variants of make they are all a pain to maintain in
 >> comparison to Jam.
 >
 >Let's not forget the big picture. From a Windows perspective nothing 
beats
 >prebuilt libraries. :-)

If there was just one version of one compiler involved, that wouldn't be 
too difficult, although there are a lot of build variants possible.  It 
gets really messy providing prebuilt libs when there are multiple versions 
of multiple compilers.

--Beman