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 <
> 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
> > > I don't want to loose the ability for BPL to be built (and tested) as
> > > 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
> > > including flag to be passed to the build (e.g., `b2 ...
> > > rather than having to modify the (build) code.
> > Scanning for Jamroot to identify the project root is fundamental to Jam
> > 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 ,
> 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
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk