Re: [boost] Re: Why Jam?

From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-02-21 17:06:49

At 10:56 AM 2/21/2002, danl_miller wrote:

 > ...

 >  The focus here in Boost should be on C++-file content, not on build
 >environments.  Any focus on build environments should be focused on
 >removing hurdles.  One hurdle is how do the widely-spread community of
 >Boost contributors-developers speak to each other with a lingua
 >franca, despite POSIX/UNIX versus Microsoft versus Mac differences.
 >Another hurdle is how does Boost get out to all of the C++ developers
 >who are intended to install & use Boost libraries.  The goal here in
 >Boost should be to design well-thought-out useful C++ library content
 >which are popular with the C++ community, so popular that they become
 >incorporated into the C++ standard and incorporated into numerous C++
 >programs/applications/embedded-systems.  If a build-time hurdle is
 >eroding either this focus or this goal, then let's figure out a
 >work-around to that hurdle.

Nice summation.  And I hope that you can follow up with HTML, as Dave 
suggested.  Please include the above.

 >  This posting presents one such proposed work-around.

The concern, of course, is that an adjunct 
build/install/portability-environment won't be maintained, and that will 
reflect poorly on Boost. Once we finish converting the Boost regression 
tests to Jam, that will ensure that our Jamfiles are kept up to date (since 
our regression tests will break if the Jamfiles break).

An adjunct build/install/portability-environment would probably focus more 
on build/install than build/test issues, and that might be fairly easy to 
test before releases, at least for Linux and Windows.

Regardless, I'm willing to give an adjunct 
build/install/portability-environment a try, if there are people who will 
commit to create and maintain it.

--Beman