Re: [boost] Re: impl(ementations) - keeping it simple

From: John Torjo (john.lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-01-28 00:23:14

> I'm opposed to this idea because:
> 
>     0. Testing this configuration is a burden on developers
> 
>     1. It gives an implied guarantee that it will work for the user
>        (see 2)
> 
>     2. We have no control over compiler flags or other settings that
>        may be neccessary for the library to work, nor that different
>        libraries are compiled with compatible options
> 
>     3. If we don't need that control for some libraries today, but we
>        need it tomorrow, we'll have to take the feature of being able
>        to do the big #include back from the user
> 

Ok, I give up ;)
I did look at the existing jamfiles, etc.

I still think that from all the users using boost, there is quite a little 
percentage that are willing to use bjam to compile the libraries needing 
separate compilation (of course, that's just my fild guess).

Maybe to simplify the process, in boost-root (where boost-build.jam file 
exists), we could have a makefile which automatically builds bjam from the 
source files and the invokes it with a given configuation.

like:
make msvc
(instead of bjam "-sTOOLS=msvc")

Unfortunately, I don't have any makefile knowledge.

Best,
John