From: Bjørn Roald (bjorn_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-03-06 12:22:27
Kevin Heifner wrote:
> Jeff Garland wrote:
>> Bjørn Roald wrote:
>>>> 2. Something is created that can generate MPC files from Jamfiles.
>>> This would be useful. MPC itself does not need to be in the boost
>>> distro for this scheme to work. All that is needed is that something
>>> can generate the .mpc files. One natural choice would be an add-on to
>>> bbv2 since it already parses the Jamfiles.
>> Agree that this would be handy and would go over well with fans of boost
>> build. If you took a particular library it would somehow have to get all the
>> rules from the tools/build/v2/*.jam files for a given environment to produce
>> the needed mpc information. The potential problem I see is that MPC embeds
>> some of this same information in it's template files...so you might have to
>> 'templatize the mpc templates' so the nitty gritty details of toolset
>> configurations can be exposed.
> OCI is going to take a look at developing a perl script that will
> convert Jamfiles to MPC files.
Great :-) I may help out a bit if needed.
>>>> 4. (added after reading the last section of the email)
>>>> Add Jamfile input file support to MPC.
>>> Yes, If the semantics of the information in .mpc files and Jamfiles are
>>> close, this may be feasible. Would be fun to try it out anyway. Think
>>> I need better understanding of the two file formats first.
>> MPC isn't a build system, so it's a bit different. None-the-less all the
>> details of how to configure compile options and such need to be in the MPC and
>> Jamfiles. Both MPC and Jam put this mostly behind the scenes with a good set
>> of defaults. So, this also might be another valid approach.
> After discussing this with Chad Elliott the main MPC developer we
> don't believe that this would be appropriate.
I can understand that as it would complicate MPC itself.
-- Bjørn Roald
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk