Subject: Re: [boost] New name of bjam.exe
From: Artyom (artyomtnk_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-07-20 06:05:52
"build" is not good as it some kind of "namespace pollution",
and is very problematic for systems with single "bin" path - as most Unix like
So you need something unique starting with boost prefix as namespace.
For example all mysql utilities start with mysql prefix thus I think boost build
boost_build or boostbld, not really matter, the point is clear.
----- Original Message ----
> From: Vladimir Prus <ghost_at_[hidden]>
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Sent: Tue, July 20, 2010 11:45:07 AM
> Subject: [boost] New name of bjam.exe
> I am sure that most of you got accustomed to typing "bjam" in console whenever
> want to build things. This name is old, and derives from a tool named "jam",
> is even older (around for maybe 20 years). However, this name is probably no
> First, having a single project be identified by both "Boost.Build" and "bjam"
> proves inconveninent from "marketing" and conveninence standpoints, to the
> many users try to read documentation for Boost.Jam, don't find anything there,
> become upset.
> Second, users get the idea that Boost.Build is somehow related to "Classic
> is not true.
> For those reasons, Rene and I have decided that "bjam.exe" should go. We're
> about naming the executable simply "build.exe", since no other build tool
> take it.
> Does anybody have comments, or better suggestions?
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk