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.
(instead of bjam "-sTOOLS=msvc")
Unfortunately, I don't have any makefile knowledge.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk