Re: [boost] Re: Why Jam?

From: David Abrahams (david.abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-02-21 11:21:42

I like where you're headed here. It appears to me to be the status-quo
(correct me if I've missed something), but the way you've phrased it is
excellent and worth reinforcing. If this doesn't raise too much of an
outcry, it would be good if you'd translate the posting into a patch set for
the boost website.

Regards,
Dave

----- Original Message -----
From: "danl_miller" <danl_miller_at_[hidden]>
>
>   I have been thinking along a parallel line while reading all
> postings in this thread.  The current Jam-based Boost.Build is for
> Boost developers-contributors.  Many of the anti-Jam postings (and not
> fully-in-favor-of-Jam postings) have been focused on
> installation/deployment.

<snip>