Boost logo

Boost :

From: Jeff Flinn (TriumphSprint2000_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-05-26 11:01:15

"David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> "Jeff Flinn" <TriumphSprint2000_at_[hidden]> writes:


>> I think that if the current example were as you suggest, this whole topic
>> probably would not have come up. Issuing:
>> bjam "-sTOOLS=vc-7_1" install
>> would probably do what the majority of first time users would
>> intuit.
> Unless they did what Schobi did (twice): type ..\bjam.exe and then
> paste the entire command line.
> But if a change like that will make a difference, send me your SF user
> name and I'll give you CVS access, so you can fix it.

Ok, I'm a real neophyte here though. I assume somehow that I need to get a
SF user name. Any hints on doing that? Does this mean I subscribe to

>> Now my only concerns would be the ease of getting a bjam.exe
>> available
> We've always had a binary download for windows available. What more
> do you need?

Currently "I" don't need anything more. ;) I'll have to take a look at that
again. I downloaded bjam.exe at least a couple of years ago, and copied it
to my C:\boost directory. Then I copy it to each boost version directory
when I download/unzip a new version of boost. I remember way back in 2000,
that I was under the impression that I had to get the bjam project and build
it to get a bjam.exe.

Can one say that those users that download a .zip(or self extracting .exe)
of boost are on windows? Couldn't a windows bjam.exe be added to the
version's root directory? Then you just do a cd to C:\boost\boost_1_32_0 and
run "bjam -sTOOLS=vc-7_1 install". Or possibly add a setup.bat file that you
can double-click on from windows explorer?

>> and the inconsistency in naming for the VC targets:
>> msvc // VC6.5 can we add vc6_5?
>> vc7 // VC7 would vc7_0 be better?
>> vc-7_1 // VC7.1 why the dash? why not vc7_1?
> The dash is there for dumb reasons: we call the toolset files
> <toolsetname>-tools.jam
> and for the purposes of building a Boost distro on CD we can't have
> filenames with multiple '.' characters in them, so we changed '.' to
> '_' in the names of things like vc-7.1-tools.jam. But we should have
> changed BBv1 to allow users to type a '.' on the command-line and
> translate it internally when we made that change; it would be pretty
> easy. As for naming consistency, yes, it would probably be better.

I see no problem with 7_1 rather than 7.1. I think having '.','-' and '_' in
a single command line parameter is is more confusing than say 'vc7_1'.

> BBv2 fixes all of these problems, and we've been reluctant to make
> trivial improvements in BBv1 because it's been so long anticipated
> that it would be retired. Now it looks like it won't be retired until
> just after 1.33, so it's a toss-up whether we should do anything about
> it. I'm willing to go either way.

Of course that would bring up the (rhetorical)question of how long before a
1.34 release?

Thanks, Jeff Flinn

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at