From: Thomas Witt (witt_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-05-01 09:52:13
On Wednesday 01 May 2002 16:06, Noel Yap wrote:
> I'm a newbie to boost who finds its ideas great.
> However, I do find that its build and install is
> extremely incongruent to established free software
> processes (ie autoconf, automake, make). I was
> wondering why this was so?
'Cause some vendors still insist on selling proprietary (i.e non Unix)
Seriously as discussed earlier aam does not quite fit. As absurd as it may
sound boost jam needs less machinery and is better suited for multiplatform
(Compiler & OS) development(as opposed to deployment).
According to what I've
> read, there seems to be a push to keep using jam.
> What would it take to move towards the more
> established means of building and installing?
Someone doing the actual work. Personally I am very sceptical whether having
two systems will work, but we will never be sure unless somebody actually
tries to implement _and_ maintain aam for boost.
-- Dipl.-Ing. Thomas Witt Institut fuer Verkehrswesen, Eisenbahnbau und -betrieb, Universitaet Hannover voice: +49(0) 511 762 - 4273, fax: +49(0) 511 762-3001 http://www.ive.uni-hannover.de
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk