RE: [boost] Re: Why Jam?

From: Jeff Garland (jeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-02-21 11:56:12

I agree 100% with Dan's approach.  We should encourage support for multiple
build/install paradigms contributed by the community.  As much as Bill can't
install Cygwin or whatever, working in a different corporate environment where
Make is the norm, it can be difficult to switch people to JAM.  Usually, they
won't need to know about boost builds.  However,  if a configuration management
team is involved in doing builds they might very well want control and they will
likely be unhappy if they have to do something special for the boost libraries.

And, there are still issues getting everyone using JAM.  I wrote a Makefile for
a person trying to use the GDTL stuff the other day b/c he was having problems
getting JAM to work under Cygwin.  It was faster for me to write the Makefile
then try to debug the JAM issues.  I'm sure we could have asked for support on
the boost list and got it right away, but that's not the point.  He wanted to
experiment with the code, the build problem was a distraction.  The job was
simple, it took me 10 minutes to write the Makefile and we were done b/c I know
Make, he knows Make, and his environment supported Make.

Also, Boost packages already support multiple build paradigms.  John Maddox has
provided support for various Make-based options from the beginning.  I don't
know if he is going to keep supporting this, but since regex is a stable library
I would think this option would continue to be available.

Jeff

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Abrahams [mailto:david.abrahams_at_[hidden]]
> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2002 9:22 AM
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Subject: Re: [boost] Re: Why Jam?
>
>
> 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>
>
>
> Info: http://www.boost.org  Send unsubscribe requests to:
> <mailto:boost-unsubscribe_at_[hidden]>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>