Re: Why Jam?

From: bill_kempf (williamkempf_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-02-22 09:53:16

--- In boost_at_y..., "Timothy M. Shead" <tshead_at_k...> wrote:
> Regarding the earlier recommendation that makes Jam related files a 
> requirement for library submission:
> 
> >  THE PROPOSED RULES: No contribution to Boost would be accepted
> > without properly-working jamfiles which meet the expectations of 
the
> > Boost community. No contribution to Boost would be accepted if 
only
> > make, automake, and autoconf were provided. No contribution to 
Boost
> > would be *required* to have the necessary files to support make,
> > automake, and autoconf. Any contribution to Boost (which itself 
is a
> > kind gift) may optionally elect to contribute an extra gift of 
files
> > to support make, automake, and autoconf, but by explicit policy, 
there
> > would be no pressure nor brow-beating for the official-Jam-only
> > developer-contributor to also provide files to support make, 
automake,
> > and autoconf. When a contribution is made to Boost which is Jam-
only,
> > the community of make/automake/autoconf volunteers would simply 
kindly
> > note that they have some maintenance to do to their
> > make/automake/autoconf deliverable which they themselves alone are
> > advocating.
> 
> I will make a counter-proposal: instead of forcing contributors to 
> shoulder the burden of build system requirements, let the Jam and 
> auto-tools volunteers *both* make a commitment to fill in the gaps 
> (wherever they may be) as libraries are submitted.  I see it as a 
> good-natured race, and I'm willing to make such a commitment 
because I 
> know how trivial it is to put together an auto-tools build.  Are 
the Jam 
> folks willing to do the same?  If not, it would seem to speak 
volumes 
> about the usability of Jam.

Actually, developing the Jam files is much easier (at least in my 
opinion).  But that's not the point.  Boost needs a required build 
system of some sort in order to do regression testing, at the very 
least.

Bill Kempf