Subject: Re: [boost] Boost.Build files at superproject root
From: Rene Rivera (grafikrobot_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-12-31 11:25:02
To expand on why the files are there...
On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 10:06 AM, Peter Dimov <lists_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> JÃ¼rgenHunold wrote:
>> Am Mittwoch, 31. Dezember 2014, 17:35:18 schrieb Peter Dimov:
>> > Currently, the Boost root contains the following files:
>> > boost-build.jam
Can't move. This is required to be at the root as it tells the b2
executable where the BBv2 sources are.
> > boostcpp.jam
>> > boostcpp.py
They could possible move. But it's not desirable to put them in the BBv2
sources as it's project specific. They could possible move to some other
place in the Boost hierarchy.
> > bootstrap.bat
>> > bootstrap.sh
Could move.. But these are the *frontline* files that *only* Boost users
see when first building. They contain Boost only options, like ICU flags
and such. You would have to find a place to put them. Say, the same place
you move the boostcpp.* files. And adjust documentation to point users to
the new location to run.
> > Jamroot
Can't move. This is *THE* Boost Libraries root build file. It has to be at
the top level (in similar fashion to boost-build.jam).
>> > which are part of Boost.Build and so their rightful place is in the >
>> No, they are needed to _build_ all other Boost libraries. They are not
>> part of Boost.Build itself, which works fine without those files.
> I understand the distinction, in principle, between Boost.Build as a
> general build system and Boost.Build as what builds Boost, and from such a
> point of view, I'm sure you're right.
> But in practice, I think that these two parts (a) are tightly coupled and
> need to be updated in lockstep and (b) are maintained by the same people at
> the same time.
Actually they are rarely updated in lockstep. Most times the BBv2 sources
change more frequently than the Boost root build files. These root files
usually only change to update the Boost version number. And more rarely to
adjust for new libraries. Which you can tell from the revision history.
Most recent changes are a few months ago for updating the version number
and some doc links. Before that some of them are years old :-) So.. Hooray
for stability ;-)
So from a physical organization point of view, they seem the same module to
Hope the above explanations help as to why it's likely better to leave them
-- -- Rene Rivera -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Robot Dreams - http://robot-dreams.net -- rrivera/acm.org (msn) - grafikrobot/aim,yahoo,skype,efnet,gmail
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk