Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] Boost.Build: new tutorial
From: Matt Chambers (matt.chambers42_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-11-12 02:00:43

Although I know enough bjam to not get much personally from a tutorial, I
am happy to see it improve. We use bjam in our project so a better tutorial
makes it easier for casual contributors and power users to get up to speed.
Although the syntax is finicky it's the best I've seen. So thanks to Steven
and Vladimir for maintaining it all these years!

On Nov 12, 2014 12:17 AM, "Vladimir Prus" <vladimir_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> On 11/12/2014 01:58 AM, Richard wrote:
>> [Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]
>> "Steve M. Robbins" <steve_at_[hidden]> spake the secret code
>> <2922516.Yh02HbQAIQ_at_riemann> thusly:
>> Well, personally, I prefer not to have to learn a new build system if I
>>> don't
>>> have to. So my first stance would be: what's wrong with cmake, for
>>> example?
>> Ditto. Progress is being made on creating a package manager for use
>> with CMake <>; cmake has a community
>> that can actually answer questions. Bjam is orphaned AFAICT.
> I think you've expressed this opinion earlier, repeating it does not make
> it stronger,
> and the email that started this topic is about Boost.Build tutorial -
> let's stick
> to it.
> - Volodya
> --
> Vladimir Prus
> CodeSourcery / Mentor Embedded
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
> mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

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