Re: [boost] [cmake] Pull request announcement

Subject: Re: [boost] [cmake] Pull request announcement
From: Rene Rivera (grafikrobot_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-09-27 14:56:53

On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 1:29 AM Mateusz Loskot via Boost <
boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 at 05:18, Peter Dimov via Boost
> <boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > Stefan Seefeld wrote:
> >
> > > Indeed: While the above is a great starting point to support what I
> want,
> > > I don't want to loose the ability for BPL to be built (and tested) as
> part
> > > of the rest of Boost. I would thus prefer something that gives me the
> > > ability to choose the build strategy e.g. using some command-line
> option,
> > > including flag to be passed to the build (e.g., `b2 ...
> standalone=on`),
> > > rather than having to modify the (build) code.
> >
> > Scanning for Jamroot to identify the project root is fundamental to Jam
> (the
> > Perforce one). We could perhaps add something like
> >
> >     b2 --jamroot=.
> >
> > that would act as if there were an empty Jamroot at . (or equivalently if
> > the Jamfile at . were named Jamroot.)
>
> Does it mean there could be two jamfile-s?
> libs/gil/Jamroot for standalone build
> libs/gil/Jamfile for in-Boost tree build
> and the latter is simply ignored in normal b2 run, ie. without  --jamroot=.
>

No. Such a theoretical feature would use the existing Jamfile at the
location as the jamroot.

I think, this would be also very helpful to apply the Jamroot trick [1],
> recently presented to me by Steven Watanabe,
> to significantly speed up b2 startup procedures:
>

But, yes, it would allow for that trick. In general I think the
boost-root/Jamroot does way-way too much. If Boost where restructure to be
modular only most of that work would unnecessary.

-- 
-- Rene Rivera
-- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything
-- Robot Dreams - http://robot-dreams.net